Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 83–113 | Cite as

International orientation, efficiency of and regard for research in East and West Germany: A bibliometric investigation of aspects of technology genesis in the United Germany

  • H. Grupp
  • Sybille Hinze
Article

Abstract

The efficiency of areas of science was evaluated using the DEA method. Areas achieving a maximum orientation or regard of international publication are rated as efficient. The areas of reproductive medicine, organic and inorganic chemistry in the former Federal Republic can thus be regarded as efficient areas of science. No area of scientific research in the former East Germany was able to achieve the optimum. The determinant in this connection is the adverse situation with respect to international orientation whilst no substantial difference in regard for further research could be detected between East and West German research.

Keywords

Inorganic Chemistry Reproductive Medicine Federal Republic German Research International Orientation 
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. 1.
    Team of Authors (1991a): Erster Technikreport: Industrietechnologie im Überblick; Lebensmitteltechnologie im einzelnen; mutmaßliche Wirkungen der Technik; denkbarer Bedarf an Technikfolgenstudien. Commissioned by Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung des Deutschen Bundestages (TAB), FhG-ISI, Karlsruhe, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Team of Authors (1991b): Zweiter Technikreport: Naturwissenschaftliche Forschung im Überblick; Informationstechnologie im einzelnen; mutmaßliche Wirkungen der Technik; denkbare Folgen von Forschung und Technik. Commissioned by Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung des Deutschen Bundestages (TAB), FhG-ISI, Karlsruhe, 1991b.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, R. L. Clark, An Approach to Testing for Organizational Slack Via Banker's Game Theoretic DEA Formulations. Research Report CCS 613, Center of Cybernetic Studies, University of Texas at Austin, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units,European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (1978), 429–444.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units,European Journal of Operational Research, 2(4) (1979) 339 (Corrections).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes, Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: An application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through,Management Science, 27(6) (1981) 668–697.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. S. Dasgupta, P. A. David, Resource allocation and the institutions of science. Marstrand Symposium on Economics of Technology, Marstrand, Sweden, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Grupp (1990a). Staatliche Politik und industrielle Strategien für Forschung und Technologie im Licht der Ertragsbemessung. In:Technikpolitik angesichts der Umweltkatastrophe,Krupp, H. (Hrsg.), Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990, pp. 192–209.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Grupp, (1990b), Zur ergänzenden Funktion von Wissenschafts- und Technikindikatoren am Beispiel der Telekommunikationforschung und- entwicklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In:Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Reihe Gesellschaftswissenschaften, 39 (1990) 835–855.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Grupp, Innovation Dynamics in OECD Countries: Towards a Correlated Network of R & D-Intensity, Trade, Patent and Technometric Indicators. In:Technology and Productivity. The Challenge for Economic Policy. Ed. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, OECD 1991, pp. 275–295.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Grupp (Ed.),Dynamics of Science Based Innovation, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Grupp, Sh. Maital, A. Frenkel, K. Koschatzky (1993), The relation between technological excellence and export sales — A data envelopment model and comparison of Israel to EEC countries,Research Evaluation (In print).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Grupp, E. Albrecht, K. Koschatzky, By way of introduction: Alliances between science research and innovation research, in:Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation,Grupp(Ed.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Grupp, U. Schmoch,Wissenschaftsbindung der Technik. Panorama der internationalen Entwicklung und sektorales Tableau für Westdeutschland, Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Hinze, H. Grupp, Applied research and industrial development in East Germany: International comparison by performance indicators, in:Technovation, 12:4 (1992) 257–278.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Koschatzky, Forschung und Entwicklung für die Lebensmitteltechnologie von morgen, 1992 (in print).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Legler, H. Grupp, B. Gehrke, U. Schasse, Innovationspotential und Hochtechnologie. Technologische Position Deutschlands im internationalen Wettbewerb,Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Beiträge, Bd. 70, Physica, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Rammert,Entstehung und Entwicklung der Technik: Der Stand der Forschung zur Technikgenese in Deutschland, WZB, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. M. Scherer, The World productivity growth slump, in:Organizing Industrial Development,R. Wolff (Ed.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1986, pp. 15–27.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U. Schmoch,Weubewerbsvorsprung durch Patentinformation, TÜV Rheinland, Köln, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U. Schmoch, H. Grupp, B. Schwitalla, W. Mannsbart,Technikprognosen mit Patentindikatoren, TÜV Rheinland, Köln, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields, in:Scientometrics, 16 (1989) 3–478.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Stankiewicz, Technology as an autonomous socio-cognitive system, in:Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation,Grupp H. (Ed.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. F. J. van Raan, (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, M. Winterhager, Die deutsche Grundlagenforschung im internationalen Vergleich. BMFT-Projekt, Arbeitsbericht zur Forschungsphase 1, Universitätsschwerpunkt Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Bielefeld, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Weingart, M. Winterhager,Die Vermessung der Forschung, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, New York, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Grupp
    • 1
  • Sybille Hinze
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und InnovationsforschungKarlsruhe(Germany)

Personalised recommendations