Describing national science and technology systems through a multivariate approach: country participation in the 6th Framework Programmes
The objective of this work is to describe the distribution of different types of participating organizations in the health thematic area of the 6th Framework Programme. A total of 2132 different organizations were classified according to four types and then grouped by country. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out on the percentage of funding obtained by each type of organization. Results show a countries map plotted around the “private” and “public” principal components. It is observed that there are countries which research is basically performed by government research centres, while others are supported in the university activity. We conclude that the PCA is a suitable method to plot the distribution of research organizations by country and the results could be used as a tool for theoretical studies about the scientific activity in a country.
KeywordsScientometrics Multivariate analysis 6th Framework Programme Biomedicine Triple Helix
We wish to thank the R&D Framework Programmes Department of the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI) of Spain for their support and the supply of 6th EU Framework Programme data.
- Albrecht, V., & Vanecek, J. (2008). Assessment of participation of the Czech Republic in the EU framework programmes. Prague: Technology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
- Arnold, E., Astrom, T., Boekholt, P., Brown, N., Good, B., Holmberg, R., et al. (2008). Impact of the framework programme in Sweden. Stockholm: VINNOVA.Google Scholar
- Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
- Chesnay, F. (1993). The French national system of innovation. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative study (p. 560). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dehon, C., Mccathie, A., & Verardi, V. (2009). Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: A closer look at the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0076-0.
- Edquist, C. (2006). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2008). FP6 final review: Subscription, implementation, participation. Brussels: Research Directorate-General.Google Scholar
- Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2002). Facts & figures research 2002. Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., & Scharnhorst, A. (2002). Measuring the knowledge base: A program of innovation studies, report to the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
- Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative study. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Roediger-Schulga, T., & Barber, M. J. (2007). R&D collaboration networks in the European framework programmes: Data processing, network construction and selected results. Maastricht: United Nation University.Google Scholar
- Roediger-Schulga, T., & Dachs, B. (2006). Does technology affect network structure? A quantitative analysis of collaborative research projects in two specific EU programmes. Maastricht: United Nation University.Google Scholar
- Single European Act. (1987). Official Journal of the European Union, L69.Google Scholar
- Uotila, M., Kutinlahti, P., Kuitunen, S., & Loikkanen, T. (2004). Finnish participation in the EU fifth framework programme and beyond. Helsinki: Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D.Google Scholar