Setting research priorities: A taxonomy of policy models

M. Godinho, J. Caraca
{"title":"Setting research priorities: A taxonomy of policy models","authors":"M. Godinho, J. Caraca","doi":"10.1109/ACSIP.2009.5367837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years there has been a wide discussion in S&T policy fora on the intrinsic value of countries defining S&T priorities. This paper addresses the international situation with regard to these issues, by comparing a group of 27 different countries. An empirical exploration of data regarding S&T activities in those 27 countries is carried out, in order to infer through cluster analysis different `types' or `models' of S&T priority setting. The analysis shows that two major patterns of scientific publication exist, with some countries concentrating on ¿engineering and technology¿ publications while others concentrate on ¿health-related¿ themes. A second important aspect is that some countries tend to select R&D areas targeting ¿socio-economic objectives¿ to be financed by public funds while others give priority to a more blue-sky research. Larger countries, namely those that have stronger military interests, tend to be part of the first group. Finally, it is shown that providing less earmarked funds does not necessarily mean lower private participation in national R&D activities. By illuminating what are the existing models of research priority setting the paper intends to have a practical value for both policy-makers and analysts.","PeriodicalId":280544,"journal":{"name":"2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSIP.2009.5367837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years there has been a wide discussion in S&T policy fora on the intrinsic value of countries defining S&T priorities. This paper addresses the international situation with regard to these issues, by comparing a group of 27 different countries. An empirical exploration of data regarding S&T activities in those 27 countries is carried out, in order to infer through cluster analysis different `types' or `models' of S&T priority setting. The analysis shows that two major patterns of scientific publication exist, with some countries concentrating on ¿engineering and technology¿ publications while others concentrate on ¿health-related¿ themes. A second important aspect is that some countries tend to select R&D areas targeting ¿socio-economic objectives¿ to be financed by public funds while others give priority to a more blue-sky research. Larger countries, namely those that have stronger military interests, tend to be part of the first group. Finally, it is shown that providing less earmarked funds does not necessarily mean lower private participation in national R&D activities. By illuminating what are the existing models of research priority setting the paper intends to have a practical value for both policy-makers and analysts.
设定研究重点:政策模型的分类
近年来,科技政策论坛对各国确定科技优先事项的内在价值进行了广泛的讨论。本文通过比较27个不同的国家,论述了有关这些问题的国际形势。本文对这27个国家的科技活动数据进行了实证研究,以期通过聚类分析推断出科技优先级设置的不同“类型”或“模型”。分析表明,存在两种主要的科学出版物模式,一些国家侧重于“工程和技术”出版物,而另一些国家侧重于“健康相关”主题。第二个重要方面是,一些国家倾向于选择以“社会经济目标”为目标的研发领域,由公共基金资助,而另一些国家则优先考虑更有前景的研究。较大的国家,即那些拥有更强军事利益的国家,往往属于第一类。最后,研究表明,提供较少的专项资金并不一定意味着较低的私人参与国家研发活动。通过阐明现有的研究优先级设置模型,本文旨在为政策制定者和分析人员提供实用价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信