Abstract
This article discusses quantitative S&T indicators from the perspective of their usefulness in bringing longer term considerations into policy making. A number of areas of current and future work by the Longer Term Studies Group of the Department of Trade and Industry are presented as illustrative cases. The main concern of the article, however, is to outline some of the main decisions facing S&T policy making, thereby setting the context for the development and use of quantitative indicators. It is suggested that the approach of considering longer term trends and developments in the context of present-day policy issues may well open new opportunities for the development of quantitative indicators. Above all a pragmatic approach is required, weighing up the value of an indicator with other sources of information in considering their relevance to the practical problems of policy making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and references
Some reviews of the approaches and techniques used by other countries have appeared (e.g. J. IRVINE and B. MARTIN,Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, London, Pinter, 1984) though beyond such comparisons there is little analysis of the nature of the problems facing policy makers.
c. f. J. IRVINE, B. MARTIN,op. cit., note 3.
E. g. E. MANSFIELD, Composition of R&D expenditures: Relationship to size of firm, concentration and innovation output,Review of Economics and Statistics, 63 (4) (000) 610; Z. GRILICHES, Returns to research and development expenditures in the private sector, in: J. W. KENDRICK, B. N. VACCARA (Eds),New Developments in Productivity Measurement and Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980. See also R. NELSON, Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: Dead ends and new departures,Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. IXI. Sept, 1981.
Exploitable areas of Science, London, HMSO, 1986.
See DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY,Science and Technology Report 1985–86, London, Department of Trade and Industry, 1987.
This broader view of the nature of firms' technological activities is also mentioned in K. PAVITT, this volume. See also C. FREEMAN,Technological Policy and Economic Performance, London, Pinter, 1987.
The bias of financial institutions to short term investments and effects of government's own spending on defence R&D are perhaps the two most widely discussed examples. To date, however, there would appear to be comparatively few empirical studies which analyse the effects on innovative activities within firms of either factor (see e.g. G. HALL. Lack of finance as a constraint on the expansion of innovatory firms, in: J. BARBER, S. METCALFE, M. PORTEOUS, (Eds),Barriers to Grwoth of Small, Innovative Firms, London, Croom Helm, forthcoming.
These are also discussed in the report, F. NARIN, D. OLIVASTRO, Identifying Areas of Strength and Excellence in UK Technology: Report by CHI for DTI, 1987.
Work in progress ‘Up-date of NSF Science Literature Indicators Data-Base’ at the Science Policy Research Unit. The results are reported in: B. R. MARTIN, J. IRVINE, F. NARIN, C. STERRITT, The continuing decline of British science,Nature, 330 (13 November 1987) 123.
E. g. J. IRVINE,Evaluating Applied Research-Lessons from Japan, London, Pinter, 1988.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Several colleagues gave helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. However, the paper represents the views of the author and not necessarily those of the DTI.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Porteous, M. The role and development of quantitative indicators for research and technology policy making: Some experience from the department of trade and industry. Scientometrics 14, 315–327 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020082
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020082