The impact assessment of support programmes of science-based emerging technologies requires the analysis of several dimensions of performance, as these programmes refer to used-inspired basic research which is linked to basic research as well as to technological application. Bibliometric analysis proves to be a useful tool for capturing different aspects of performance. In the specific programme “future emerging technologies”, interdisciplinarity turns out to be crucial for achieving excellent and creative outcomes. Furthermore, the orientation on risky projects yields some excellent results, but few failures.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
There is a close link between evaluation and impact assessment, but evaluation and assessment are not identical concepts (Airaghi et al. 1999:8).
FET Flagships were not part of our impact assessment.
TF Idf (Term frequency Inverse document frequency, see https://janav.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/tf-idf-and-cosine-similarity/).
The survey was conducted online by the programme Questback offered by Enterprise Feedback Suite (EFS).
Because the excellent performance of the project—based on the bibliometric analysis—was the criterion to select these projects.
Airaghi, A., Busch, N. E., Georghiou, L., Stefan Kuhlmann, S., Ledoux, M. J., et al. (1999). Options and limits for assessing the socio-economic impact of european RTD programmes, report to the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
Arts, S., & Veugelers, R. (2014). Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(6), 1215–1246.
Bonnín Roca, J., Vaishnava, P., Morgan, M. G., Joana Mendonça, J., & Fuchs, E. (2017). When risks cannot be seen: Regulating uncertainty in emerging technologies. Research Policy, 46, 1215–1233.
Cochrane, J. H. (2005). The risk and return of venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 75(1), 3–52.
De Touzalin, A. (2013). Future and emerging technologies (FET) work programme 2014–2015 in H2020, DG CONNECT. Paris: European Commission.
Georghiou, L., & Roessner, D. (2000). Evaluating technology programs: Tools and methods. Research Policy, 29, 657–678.
Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37, 195–221.
Lai, P. C. (2017). The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology. JISTEM Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14(1), 1.
Mamykina, L., Candy, L., & Ernest Edmonds, E. (2002). Collaborative creativity. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 96–99.
Mason, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2002). Is it worth it? The rates of return from informal venture capital investments. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 211–236.
Rhoten, D., & Andrew Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 17(306/5704), 2046.
Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2016). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843.
Sahlmann, W. (1990). The structure and governance of venture capital organizations. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 473–521.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmoch, U. (2007). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. Research Policy, 36(7), 1000–1015.
Schmoch, U., Breiner, S., Cuhls, K., Hinze, S., & Münt, G. (1996). The organisation of interdisciplinarity—Research structures in the areas of medical lasers and neural networks. In G. Reger & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Organisation of science and technology at the watershed (pp. 267–372). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Shapira, P., & Kuhlmann, S. (2003). Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant—Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Struening, E. L., & Guttentag, M. (1975). Handbook of evaluation research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 74–87.
Van Raan, A. J. F. (2005). Measurement of central aspects of scientific research: Performance. Interdisciplinarity, Structure, Measurement, 3(1), 1–19.
Certain data included in this paper are derived from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), and the Index to Social Sciences and Humanities Proceedings (ISSHP) (all updated June 2010) prepared by Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. (TR®), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, USA: ©Copyright Thomson Reuters (Scientific) 2010. All rights reserved.
Funding was provided by European Commission (Grant No. i665083)
About this article
Cite this article
Schmoch, U., Beckert, B. & Schaper-Rinkel, P. Impact assessment of a support programme of science-based emerging technologies. Scientometrics 118, 1141–1161 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-03002-x
- Impact assessment
- Science-based emerging technologies
- Multi-dimensional impact
- Impact of interdisciplinarity
- Impact of risk-orientation