Skip to main content
Log in

Detecting the emergence of technologies and the evolution and co-development trajectories in science (DETECTS): a ‘burst’ analysis-based approach

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

Abstract

This work aims to detect the emergence of science and technology fields and to characterise science and technology trajectories. It proposes a new data mining approach, called ‘DETECTS’, for the identification of those research and innovative activities whose intensity increases sharply compared to previous levels and to other developments. This approach also allows monitoring the extent to which field and topic-specific activities further accelerate, stabilise or abate, and the time it takes for such dynamics to unfold. By applying the ‘DETECTS’ methodology on data from scientific publications and patents, this work sheds light on: the structure, articulation and relevance of the most important scientific and technological developments occurred during the period 1990–2011; the extent to which new fields arise from the cross-fertilisation of different technologies; the way in which advancements in science relate to technological progress; and the areas where future developments are likely to occur in the short and medium term. Results further suggest, somewhat unexpectedly, that in some focal technology fields considered, the acceleration in the development of science seems to closely follow the acceleration in the development of technologies, and not vice versa.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bass’ model was originally intended for the analysis of the diffusion of new products, but was later followed to model the diffusion of successive generations of technologies. See Bass (2004) for a survey.

  2. A recent discussion about technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies can be found in Di Stefano et al. (2012).

  3. Iran: 29 % annual growth between 1996 and 2011 on citable documents (SCImago 2012).

  4. The IPC system is maintained under the aegis of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Further information on the IPC is provided at: www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc.

  5. In most patent databases, patent documents are retrospectively re-allocated to newly defined or modified IPC codes according to the latest edition of the IPC system.

  6. See http://www.epo.org/searching/subscription/raw/product-14-24_fr.html for further details on EPO’s PATSTAT database.

  7. Patent families are defined here using the concept of the “extended” patent families as described in Martínez (2011), and are built using the INPADOC family table of PATSTAT database, Spring 2014.

  8. USPTO patent applications rules are presented in USPTO, Consolidated Patent Rules, May 2014 (pp. 150–151), available at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_rules.pdf.

  9. Figures for the USPTO grants may suffer from truncation from the mid-2000s, because of comparatively longer examination delays.

  10. IPC subclasses refer to the 3rd level IPC group (e.g. 4-digit level).

  11. A threshold of more than 100 patents between 1995 and 2011 has been applied.

  12. Future work might exploit information about authors, inventors and their affiliations, and thus test for the hypotheses made about the different incentives that may drive scientific publications and patenting, and the extent to which affiliations (e.g. academia or industry) shape them.

  13. An alternative research path aimed to shed light on the link scientific research—patented inventions would entail starting from bursting technologies and looking at the possible citations to the scientific literature they may make, to see if some related literature was bursting before the considered technologies “burst” in patents.

References

  • Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. A. (2002). The emergence of emerging technologies. Singapore: Insead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, S., Appio, F. P., & Van Looy, B. (2013). Inventions shaping technological trajectories: Do existing patent indicators provide a comprehensive picture? Scientometrics, 97(2), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M. (2004). Comments on ‘a new product growth for model consumer durables the bass model’. Management Science, 50(12_supplement), 1833–1840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battisti, G., & Stoneman, P. (2005). The intra-firm diffusion of new process technologies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., & Zhou, Y. (2001). A software repository for education and research in information visualization. In Information visualisation conference, London, England, July 25–27, 2001, pp. 257–262.

  • Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dernis, H., Dosso, M., Hervás, F., Millot, V., Squicciarini, M., & Vezzani, A. (2015). World corporate top R&D investors: Innovation and IP bundles. A JRC and OECD common report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41(8), 1283–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epicoco, M. (2013). Knowledge patterns and sources of leadership: Mapping the semiconductor miniaturization trajectory. Research Policy, 42(1), 180–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Nuvolari, A., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(4), 311–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graff, G. D. (2003). Observing technological trajectories in patent data: Empirical methods to study the emergence and growth of new technologies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1266–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, T., & Meade, N. (1997). The diffusion of successive generations of a technology: A more general model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 56(1), 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karvonen, M., & Kässi, T. (2013). Patent citations as a tool for analysing the early stages of convergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 1094–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7(4), 373–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liikanen, J., Stoneman, P., & Toivanen, O. (2004). Intergenerational effects in the diffusion of new technology: The case of mobile phones. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8), 1137–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A. (2012). An emerging paradigm or just another trajectory? Understanding the nature of technological changes using engineering heuristics in the telecommunications switching industry. Research Policy, 41(2), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, C. (2011). Patent families: When do different definitions really matter? Scientometrics, 86(1), 39–63. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0251-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martino, J. P. (2003). A review of selected recent advances in technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(8), 719–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, N., & Islam, T. (2006). Modelling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation—A 25-year review. International Journal of Forecasting, 22(3), 519–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. A., & Bass, F. M. (1987). A diffusion theory model of adoption and substitution for successive generations of high-technology products. Management Science, 33(9), 1069–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). OECD patent statistics manual. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264056442-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pae, J. H., & Lehmann, D. R. (2003). Multi generation innovation diffusion: The impact of intergenerational time? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 36–45.

  • SCImago. (2012). SJRSCImago journal and country rank. Retrieved from www.scimagojr.com. Accessed 03 July 2012.

  • Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring patent quality: Indicators of technological and economic value. OECD science, technology and industry working papers, No. 2013/03. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5k4522wkw1r8-en.

  • Von Tunzelmann, N., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P., & Metcalfe, S. (2008). Technological paradigms: Past, present and future. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(3), 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). International patent classification (IPC). http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en. Accessed 10 July 2014.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work does not represent the official views of the OECD, of its member countries, nor the Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation for Government of the State of Bahia. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the authors. We are grateful to the participants in the OECD Working Party on Industry Analysis and to Alessandra Colecchia for helpful feedback. Roberto de Pinho acknowledges the support of the OECD and of the Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation for Government of the State of Bahia. The usual caveats apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariagrazia Squicciarini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dernis, H., Squicciarini, M. & de Pinho, R. Detecting the emergence of technologies and the evolution and co-development trajectories in science (DETECTS): a ‘burst’ analysis-based approach. J Technol Transf 41, 930–960 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9449-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9449-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation