Advertisement

Evaluating the Industrial Relevance of Public R&D Laboratories

  • Robert Dalpe
Chapter

Abstract

In most industrialized countries, the public sector is a major performer of R&D, notably in fields such as health, defence, energy and agriculture (for Canada, in 1989, 43% of Gross Domestic Expenditure in R&D (GERD) is executed in government or university. In United-States, it is 26% [OECD, 1991]). Intra-muros research can be carried out to provide governments with the knowledge they need to fulfill their mandates. Public laboratories assist government in various activities, such as regulation and policy definition. The development of knowledge inside the public sector was traditionally justified by the necessity to have its own expertise in order to not depend on institutions which are to be regulated. Most public laboratories also have the mandate to contribute to the development of knowledge and science and/or to assist industry by developing applied knowledge, diffusing information and providing technical support.

Keywords

Patent Citation Bibliometric Indicator Pure Research Alloy Technology Industrial Relevance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Anderson, F. (1987), New Approaches to Research Policy Using Bibliometrics, Qubec, Conseil de la science et de la technologie.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, F. & Dalpe, R.(forthcoming), Developing National Environmental Research Indicators, Scientometrics Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, F. and Dalpe, R. (1991), The Evaluation of Public Applied Research Laboratories, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 107–125.Google Scholar
  4. Barbarie, A. (1988), Evaluation of Programs Promoting Technological Innovation, in OECD, Evaluation of Programs Promoting Technological Innovation, Paris, p. 25–41.Google Scholar
  5. Canada (1984), Groupe de travail sur les politiques et les programmes fdraux de dveloppement technologique (Wright Report), Ministere d’tat, Science et Technologie.Google Scholar
  6. Crow, M.M. and Bozeman, B.L., A New Typology for R and D Laboratories: Implications for Policy Analysis, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 6, p. 328–341.Google Scholar
  7. Dalpe, R. & Anderson F. (1991), National Priorities in Scientific Research — Strategic Research and Contracts in Renewable Energies, unpublished man.Google Scholar
  8. DeBresson, C. & Amesse, F. (1991), Networks of Innovators: A Review and Introduction to the Issue, Research Policy, vol. 20, no. 5, p. 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frame, J. D. & Narin, F. (1990), The United States, Japan and the Changing Technological Balance, Research Policy, vol. 19, no. 5, p. 447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, C. (1988), Japan: A New National System of Innovation?, in Dosi, G. et al, Technical Change and Economic Theory, London, Frances Pinter, p. 330–348.Google Scholar
  11. Kingdon, J. W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  12. Halperin, M.R. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1987), “Firm and Industry Characteristics Influencing Publications of Scientists in Large American Firms”, R&D Management, vol. 17, p. 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoch, P. K. (1990), Institutional Mobility and the Management of Technology and Science, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 2, p. 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Irvine, J., Martin, B.R., & Oldham, G. (1983), Research Evaluation in British Science: A SPRU Review, Commissioned by the Centre de prospective et d’valuation, Ministre de la recherche et de l’industrie (France).Google Scholar
  15. Kingdon, J.W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  16. Laredo, P., et al (1991), Defining the Strategic Profile of Research Labs: The “Research Compass Card Method”, paper presented at the Joint EC-Leiden Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, October.Google Scholar
  17. Mansfield, E. (1991), “Academic Research and Industrial Innovation”, Research Policy, vol. 20, p. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Margolis, J. (1967), Citation Indexing and Evaluation of Scientific Papers, Science, no. 155, p. 1213–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. May, K.O. (1967), Abuses of Citation Indexing, Science, no. 156, p. 890–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, R. (1990), Research Laboratories and Their Primary Tasks, unpublished man., Universit du Qubec Montrai.Google Scholar
  21. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1988), Technology Indicators Based on Patents and Patent Citations, in A.F. J. Van Raan, op.cit., p. 465–507.Google Scholar
  22. Nederhof, A.J. (1988), The Vallidity and Reliability of Evaluation of Scholarly Performance, in Van Raan, A.F.J., op.cit., p. 193–228.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, R.R. (1988), Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States, in Dosi, G. et al, Technical Change and Economic Theory, London, Frances Pinter, p. 312–329.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, R.R., ed. (1982), Government and Technical Progress, New York, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  25. OECD (1990), Advanced Materials Policies and Technological Challenges.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (1991), Basic Science and Technology Statistics, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. Pavitt, K. (1991), What Makes Basis Research Economically Useful?, Research Policy, vol. 20, no. 2, p. 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothwell, R. & Zegveld, W. (1982), Industrial Innovation and Public Policy, London, Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  29. Roy, R. (1984), Alternatives to Review by Peers: A Contribution to the Theory of Scientific Choice, Minerva, vol. 22, p. 316–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rubenstein, A. H. & Geisler, E., “The Use of Indicators and Measures of the R and D Process in Evaluating Science and Technology Programs”, in Roessner, J.D., Government Innovation Policy — Design, Implementation, Evaluation, New York, St. Martin’s Press, p. 185–203.Google Scholar
  31. Sabatier, P. (1988), An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therien, Policy Sciences, vol. 21, no. 2–3, p. 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Raan, A.F.J. (1988), Handbook of Quantitative Studies in Science and Technology, North Holland, Elsivier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Von Hippel, E. (1976), The Dominant Role of Users in Scientific Instrument Innovation Process, Research Policy, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Dalpe
    • 1
  1. 1.Frances Anderson, National Research of CanadaUniversity of MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations