Scientometrics

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 369–390

Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology

  • Sujit Bhattacharya
  • Hildrun Kretschmer
  • Martin Meyer
Article

Abstract

The paper presents a methodology for studying the interactions between science and technology. Our approach rests mostly on patent citation and co-word analysis. In particular, this study aims to delineate intellectual spaces in thin-film technology in terms of science/technology interaction. The universe of thin-film patents can be viewed as the macro-level and starting point of our analysis. Applying a bottom-up approach, intellectual spaces at the micro-level are defined by tracing prominent concepts in publications, patents, and their citations of scientific literature. In another step, co-word analysis is used to generate meso-level topics and sub-topics. Overlapping structures and specificities that emerge are explored in the light of theoretical understanding of science-technology interactions. In particular, one can distinguish prominent concepts among patent citations that either co-occur in both thin-film publications and patents or reach out to one of the two sides. Future research may address the question to what extent one can interpret directionality into this.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BEVER, M. B. (1986), Encyclopedia of Material Science and Technology. Pergamon Press Ltd, USA, pp. 4989-4991.Google Scholar
  2. BHATTACHARYA, S., BASU, P. (1998), Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 43 (3): 359-372.Google Scholar
  3. BHATTACHARYA, S, SUKEEJA, G., BASU, P. (1999), Mapping the knowledge domain of a research field through scientometric indicators. In: MACIAS-CHAPULA. C. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Universidad de Colima, Colima, pp. 37-50.Google Scholar
  4. BHATTACHARYA, S., KHAN, M. T. R. (2001), Monitoring technology trends through patent analysis. Research Evaluation, 10 (1): 33-45.Google Scholar
  5. CALLON, M., COURTIAL, J. P., TURNER, W. A., BAUIN, S. (1983), From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22: 191-235.Google Scholar
  6. CAMPBELL, R. S., NEIVES N. L. (1979), Technology Indicators Based on Patent Data: The Case of Catalytic Convertors. Phase I Report, Design and Demonstration. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, n.p.Google Scholar
  7. CASIMIR, H. B. J. (1971), Industries and academic freedom. Research Policy, 1: 3-8.Google Scholar
  8. COLLINS, P., WYATT, S. (1988), Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17: 65-74.Google Scholar
  9. DAVID, C. M., ROSENBERG, N. (1982), The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some empirical studies. In: ROSENBERG, N. (Ed.), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 193-241.Google Scholar
  10. FAGERBERG, J. (1987), A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ. Research Policy, 16: 87-99.Google Scholar
  11. GRUPP, H., SCHMOCH, U. (1992) Perceptions of scientification of innovation as measured by referencing between patents and papers: dynamics in science-based fields of technology. In: GRUPP, H. (Ed.), Dynamics of Science based Innovation. Springer-Verlag, Germany, pp. 73-122.Google Scholar
  12. GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P., TROW, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage publications, London.Google Scholar
  13. GLUCER, D. A., SHAH, S. I. (Eds) (1995), Handbook of Thin Film Process Technology: User Guide. Institute of Physics, London.Google Scholar
  14. GRUPP, H., SCHMOCH, U. (1992), Perceptions of scientification of innovation as measured by referencing between patents and papers: dynamics in science-based fields of technology. In: GRUPP, H. (Ed.), Dynamics of Science based Innovation. Springer-Verlag, Germany, pp. 73-122.Google Scholar
  15. GUPTA, V. K., PANGANNAYA, N. B. (2000), Carbon nanotubes: bibliometric analysis of patents. World Patent Information, 22: 185-189.Google Scholar
  16. IRVINE, J. et al. (Ed.) (1997), Equipping Science for the 21st century. Edwer Elger Publishing Ltd., Lyme: US.Google Scholar
  17. MARTIN, B., SALTER, A. (1996), The Relationship between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance. Brigton: SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  18. MEYER, M. (2000a), Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29: 409-434.Google Scholar
  19. MEYER, M. (2000b), What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 47 (2): 93-124.Google Scholar
  20. MEYER, M. (2001), Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51 (1): 163-183.Google Scholar
  21. MOWERY, C. D., ROSENBERG, N. (1982), The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some empirical studies. In: ROSENBERG, N. (Ed.), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.193-241.Google Scholar
  22. NARIN, F. (1994), Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30 (1): 147-155.Google Scholar
  23. NARIN, F., NOMA, R. (1985), Is technology becoming science?. Scientometrics, 7: 369-381.Google Scholar
  24. NARIN, F., OLIVASTRO, D. (1992), Status report-Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21 (3): 237-249.Google Scholar
  25. NARIN F., OLIVASTRO, D. (1988), Patent citation analysis: New validation studies and linkage statistics. In: A. F. J. Van RAAN, A. J. NEDeRHOFF, H. F. MOED (Eds), Science Indicators: Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies, DSWO Press, Leiden, pp. 14-16.Google Scholar
  26. NIGHTINGALe, P. (1998), A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy, 27 (7): 689-709.Google Scholar
  27. RIP, A. (1992), Science and technology as dancing partners. In: KROES, P., BAKKER, M. (Eds), Technology Development and Science in the Industrial Age. Kluwer, n.p. pp. 231-270.Google Scholar
  28. ROSENBERG, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. TIJSSEN, R. J. W., BUTER, R. K., Van LeEUWEN, TH. N. (2000), Technological relevance of science: An assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics, 47 (2): 389-412.Google Scholar
  30. TOYNBEE, A. J. (1963), Introduction: The Genesis of Civilisations, A Study of History. 12 Vols, New York.Google Scholar
  31. VERSPAGEN, B. (1999), Large firms and knowledge flows in Dutch R&D system: A case study of Philips electronics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11: 211-233.Google Scholar
  32. White Paper on Science and Technology on New Developments in Science and Technology: Responding to National and Societal Needs (1999), Science and Technology Agency, Japanese Government (Ed.). Japan Science and Technology Corporation: Japan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publisher/Akadémiai Kiadó 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujit Bhattacharya
    • 1
  • Hildrun Kretschmer
    • 2
  • Martin Meyer
    • 3
  1. 1.National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS)New DelhiIndia
  2. 2.NERDIThe Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences (NIWI-KNAW)Amsterdam (The Netherlands
  3. 3.Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuven (Belgium

Personalised recommendations