Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dimensions of research planning: Comparative study of research units in six countries

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper seeks to examine the characteristics and quality of research planning at the level of microcosm of the research unit in six countries — Argentina, Egypt, India, Republic of Korea, Poland and USSR. It is concerned basically with the following aspects: (i) differences in the characteristics and quality of research planning in research units in different countries and institutional settings; (ii)pattern of relationships between the indices of planning and three measures of effectiveness—scientific, user-oriented and administrative; and (iii) stability in the pattern of relationships across countries and measures of performance. As a result of analysis, a few universal indices have been identified that have consistent relationships across countries. It is concluded that the determinants of effectiveness of research planning depend upon the criteria used for measuring the performance of the research unit. Besides specificity of research goals, the most important predictors of performance are: conceptual challenge of the research programme and external linkages of the research group—linkages with scientific peers and potential users of research results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. RAHMAN,Social Goals and Planning of Science, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. G. KROHEN, Patterns of institutionalization of research, in: S. Z. NAGY, R. G. CROWIN (Eds),The Social Contexts of Research, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. D. BERNAI,Social Functions of Science, Routledge, London, 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. POLANYI, The republic of science: its political and economic theory,Minerva, 1 (1963) 54.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. M. WEINBERG, Criteria for scientific choice,Minerva, 1(1963) 159.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. SAHAL,Invention, Innovation and Economic Evaluation, Report No. 82-18, Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University, 1982.

  7. H. BROOKS, Can science be planned? In: J. J. SALOMON (Ed.)Problems of Science Policy, OECD, Paris, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. M. DOBROV, Panel discussion: Bernal versus Polayni, in: J. FARKAS (Ed.),Sociology of Science and Research, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. C. MAHALANOBIS, Science and national planning,Vijanan Karmee, 10(1958) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. H. ZAHEER, Organization and management of scientific research,Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, (1965) 505.

  11. A. RAHMAN, Research and national planning,Research and Industry, 1(1956) 241.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. R. RAVETZ,Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. JOHNSTON and T. JAGTENBERG, Goal direction of scientific research, in: J. FARKAS (Ed.),Sociology of Science and Research, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. TAGUIRE, Value orientations and relationship of managers and scientists,Administrative Science Quarterly, 10 (1965) 39.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. E. CONNOR, Professionals in organizations: Some research suggestions,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-31 (1984) 7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. W. E. SOUDER, Autonomy, gratification and R&D outputs: A small sample field study,Management Science, 20 (1974) 1147.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. M. ANDREWS, The international study: its data sources and measurement procedures, in: F. M. ANDREWS (Ed.)Scientific Productivity: The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries, Cambridge University Press, 1979; S. P. GUPTA, International comparative study on the organization and performance of research units (ICSOPRU)—its objectives, methodology and major findings, in: P. S. NAGPAUL (Ed.),Organization and Efficiency of Research Groups, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, 1987.

  18. P. HUNYA,A Ranking Procedure Based on Partially Ordered Sets, Kalmar Cybernetic Laboratory, Joseph Attila University, Szeged, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. MANSFIELD, et al.,Research and Innovation in the Modern Corporation, W. W. Norton, New York, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K. P. NORRIS, The accuracy of project cost and duration in industrial research,R&D Management, 2(1971) 25.

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. J. MIGHT, W. A. FISCHER, The role of structural factors in determining project management success,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-32, (1985) 71.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology and Development Studies (CSIR) K. S. Krishnan Marg, National Institute of Science, 110012, New Delhi, (India)

    P. S. Nagpaul & V. S. R. Krishnaiah

Authors
  1. P. S. Nagpaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. S. R. Krishnaiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This is a revised version of the paper presented at XIth World Congress of Sociology, New Delhi, India, August 18–22, 1986.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagpaul, P.S., Krishnaiah, V.S.R. Dimensions of research planning: Comparative study of research units in six countries. Scientometrics 14, 383–410 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017098

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017098

Keywords

Search

Navigation