排序方式： 共有4条查询结果，搜索用时 140 毫秒
1
1.
Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
This article addresses a set of issues that were central to Keith Pavitt's research, that is, the construction and use of tools to measure national innovative performance and to design national policies relating to innovation. It presents an overview of the development of science and technology (S&T) indicators and their use in national policy making and provides evidence of the vulnerability of composite S&T indicators to manipulation. A brief history of the development of S&T indicators begins with the role of the United States followed by their worldwide diffusion with particular emphasis on Europe. Newer developments towards composite indicators, benchmarking and scoreboarding are discussed. To investigate the robustness of innovation scoreboards empirically, a sensitivity analysis of one selected case is presented. It is shown that composite scores and country rank positions can vary considerably depending on the selection process. Thus, the use of scoreboards leaves room for manipulation in the policymaking system. Further research is needed on alternative methods of calculation to prevent their misuse and abuse. 相似文献
2.
Measuring the output of men and women in science and technology has previously been mostly restricted to case studies or small-scale surveys. Based on an analysis of patent and publication databases, this paper applies a methodology to systematically assign the gender to the names of inventors and authors. The method is applied to 14 countries. The results of this investigation reveal substantial differences across countries in terms of women's relative contribution1 to science and technology, with the central European countries of Germany, Austria and Switzerland all ranking comparatively low in this respect. We also examine trends over time, showing that the data on women's share of publications - unlike the results for patents - hardly increase over time for the already better-performing nations. 相似文献
3.
The purpose of this contribution is to present a survey of the recent developments in constructing composite science and technology (S&T) indicators on a national level as well as new evidence of the variability of such S&T indicators which opens the gateway to “country-tuning”. It has become standard practice to combine several indicators for science, technology, and innovation to form composite numbers. Especially in the light of this variability, two questions arise. Firstly, are the results (especially rankings) stable with respect to weights? Secondly, is there hope to define “economically” reasonable weights? In order to provide answers to these questions, we use data from the European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 (EIS 2005) to exemplify our reasoning. Concerning the first question, we give genuine evidence on the existence of immense variability, possibly invalidating the results. Further, we also show that even existing and well-accepted methods, like equal weighting, Benefit of the Doubt weighting (BoD) and principal component analysis weighting (PCA) may lead to drastically differing results. Concerning the second question we will demonstrate that by each composite indicator weighting a set of shadow prices is implied expressing one indicator in terms of another. Whether the weights are sensible should be evaluated on the basis of these shadow prices. It turns out that those implied by EIS 2005 contain strange peculiarities. After that we plead for more care in constructing composite indicators. Especially weights should be chosen on the basis of shadow prices, rather than, say, by equal weighting or other automatic methods. Lastly, we discuss the merit of composite indicators and argue that they have a valuable communication and competition function, but they should be accompanied by multidimensional representations, which provide the basis for the construction of policy measures. 相似文献
4.
1