Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Arnold, E., Astrom, T., Boekholt, P., Brown, N., Good, B., Holmberg, R., et al. (2008). Impact of the framework programme in Sweden. Stockholm: VINNOVA.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.
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.
Breschi, S., & Cusmano, L. (2004). Unveiling the texture of a European research area: Emergence of oligarchic networks under the EU framework programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(8), 747–772.
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.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 72(2), 267–288.
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.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
European Commission. (2008). FP6 final review: Subscription, implementation, participation. Brussels: Research Directorate-General.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2002). Facts & figures research 2002. Bonn: BMBF.
Georghiou, L. (1995). Assessing the framework programmes. Evaluation, 1(2), 171–188.
Geuna, A. (1998). Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects. Research Policy, 26, 677–687.
Gravalos, E., Garcia, A., & Barnes, N. (2002). Policy influences on innovation strategies of small and medium enterprises in the agrochemical, seed and plant biotechnology sectors. Science and Public Policy, 29(4), 277–285.
Gusmao, R. (2000). Developing and using indicators of multilateral S&T cooperation for policy making: The experience from European research programmes. Scientometrics, 47(3), 493–514.
Gusmao, R. (2001). Research networks as a means of European integration. Technology in Society, 23, 383–393.
Hornbostel, S. (2001). Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity? Scientometrics, 50(3), 523–537.
Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–520.
Hughes-Wilson, W. (2004). Encouraging industry participation in the EU’s sixth framework programme: Issues, barriers and potential solutions. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10, 323–328.
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.
Laredo, P., & Mustar, P. (2004). Public sector research: A growing role in innovation systems. Minerva, 42(1), 11–27.
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.
Luukkonen, T. (1998). The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 27(6), 599–610.
Luukkonen, T. (2002). Technology and market orientation in company participation in the EU framework programme. Research Policy, 31(3), 437–455.
Mccain, K. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative study. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2003). Frascati manual 2002. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 2(11), 559–572.
Polanco, X., François, C., & Keim, J. P. (1998). Artificial neural network technology for the classification and cartography of scientific and technical information. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 69–82.
Priego, J. L. O. (2003). A vector space model as a methodological approach to the triple helix dimensionality: A comparative study of biology and biomedicine centres of two European National Research Councils from a Webometric view. Scientometrics, 58(2), 429–443.
Ramani, S. V. (2002). Who is interested in biotech? R&D strategies, knowledge base and market sales of Indian biopharmaceutical firms. Research Policy, 31(3), 381–398.
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.
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.
Single European Act. (1987). Official Journal of the European Union, L69.
Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2008). A structural analysis of publication profiles for the classification of European research institutes. Scientometrics, 74(2), 223–236.
Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). A structural analysis of benchmark on different bibliometrical indicators for European research institutes based on their research profile. Scientometrics, 79(2), 377–388.
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.
Acknowledgement
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ortega, J.L., Aguillo, I.F. Describing national science and technology systems through a multivariate approach: country participation in the 6th Framework Programmes. Scientometrics 84, 321–330 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0109-8
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0109-8