Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A New Hybrid Hermeneutic-Fuzzy-DANP Model Based Key Influencing Factors Evaluation and Ranking of Soft Science Institute

  • Published:
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a new type of science and technology think tank, the soft science institute plays an increasingly important role in decision-making consultation. It is crucial to improve the performance of the soft science institute. Facing the reality that the performance of soft science institute is affected by various factors and it is not feasible to optimize these factors simultaneously due to the limitation of resources. A feasible solution is to select and improve some key influencing factors. In this paper, a new hybrid Hermeneutic-fuzzy-DANP model for evaluating and ranking key influencing factors is proposed. First, we use a two-dimensional matrix as a template for text collection and expand the previous factors system based on the hermeneutic method. Second, expert evaluations of domain for relations between factors of soft science institute are presented as triangular fuzzy numbers. Then it is converted to precise numerical values to minimize subjectivity and fuzziness. Third, the complex interrelationships among factors are clearly quantified. The integrated DEMATEL-ANP model helps to identify cause-effect interrelation among the selected factors and supports to adjust the weights based on the feedback relationship between different levels of factors. The proposed method can solve the subjectivity and fuzziness of experts evaluations well. Based on the new hybrid model, the performance of the soft science institute will be significantly improved after identifying and optimizing these key influencing factors.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

Data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Tsai, W.H., Li, G., Song, W.Q.: Agent politics of Chinese think tanks and cultural industry governance in China’s “new era.” Crit. Asian Stud. 23(1), 1–20 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmadzadeh, S., Safari, A., Teimouri, H.: Collective stupidity: influences on decision-making in knowledge-based companies. Manag. Decis. 60(5), 1257–1295 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Qi, D.T.: The roles of government, businesses, universities and media in China’s think tank fever: a comparison with the American think tank system. China-Int. J. 16(2), 31–50 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thürer, M., et al.: A systematic review of China’s belt and road initiative: implications for global supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58(8), 2436–2453 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boell, S.K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34(1), 12 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Behzadian, M., et al.: A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(17), 13051–13069 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jharkharia, S., Shankar, R.: Selection of logistics service provider: an analytic network process (ANP) approach. Omega 35(3), 274–289 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lee, H.-S., et al.: Revised DEMATEL: resolving the infeasibility of DEMATEL. Appl. Math. Model. 37(10–11), 6746–6757 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Figueira, J.R., Mousseau, V., Roy, B.: ELECTRE methods. In: Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J.R. (eds.) Multiple criteria decision analysis, pp. 155–185. Springer, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Serafim, A., et al.: Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(2), 445–455 (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang, W., Deng, Y.: Combining conflicting evidence using the DEMATEL method. Soft Comput. 23(17), 8207–8216 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, P., Ali, Z., Mahmood, T.: Archimedean aggregation operators based on complex pythagorean fuzzy sets using confidence levels and their application in decision making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 25, 1–17 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yen, K.K., Ghoshray, S., Roig, G.: A linear regression model using triangular fuzzy number coefficients. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 106(2), 167–177 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Geng, L.P., Chen, X.L., Huang, D.S.: Influencing factors and countermeasures of the construction of science and technology think tank in Shanxi Province—an empirical study based on the statistics of science and technology in Shanxi Province and China from 2005 to 2015. J. Shanxi Inst. Econ. Manag. 56(5), 45–67 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Xiong, L.Y.: Research on the influence enhancement path of the new type science and technology think tank with Chinese Characteristics. Science Technology and Law. pp. 20–32 (2018)

  16. Wang, X., et al.: Development status and countermeasures of China’s science and technology think tank. Sci. Technol. Rev. 36, 53–61 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tsai, W.H., Lin, R.H.: How policies are adapted: the roles of local think tanks in China’s new era. China Rev. 21(2), 153–176 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mcgann, J.G., Sabatini, R.: Global Think Tanks: Policy Networks and Governance. Routledge, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Planells-Artigot, E., A. Ortigosa-Blanch, and M. Martí-Sánchez, Bridging fields: A comparative study of the presence of think tanks. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. (2021)

  20. Wang, X., et al., Case Studies of Information Dissemination influence of the New Think Tank in the New Media Environment. Research on Library Science. (2017)

  21. Gui, et al.: Interfacial relations between scientific think tanks and their influence targets. China Sci. Technol. Forum. 20(12), 50–55 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chen, G., et al.: Research on the evaluation of Chinese University Think Tanks: dimensions and index system. Higher education development and evaluation (2016)

  23. Robinson, S., Kerr, R.: Reflexive conversations: constructing hermeneutic designs for qualitative management research. Br. J. Manag. 26(4), 777–790 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yu, X.H., et al.: ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Inf. Sci. 42(4), 301–316 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Mudashiru, R.B., et al.: A comparison of three multi-criteria decision-making models in mapping flood hazard areas of Northeast Penang, Malaysia. Nat. Hazards 112(3), 1903–1939 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smieja, M.: Weighted approach to general entropy function. IMA J. Math. Control Inf. 32(2), 329–341 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Singh, P., Huang, Y.P., Wu, S.I.: An intuitionistic fuzzy set approach for multi-attribute information classification and decision-making. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 22(5), 1506–1520 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hu, Y.J., et al.: Comprehensive evaluation of cloud manufacturing service based on fuzzy theory. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 23(6), 1755–1764 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hsieh, M.Y.: Grey-clustering macroeconomic assessment model to detect the fluctuation in the ten economies. J. Grey Syst. 24(1), 67–80 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zavadskas, E.K., et al.: Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems: an overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making. 15(3), 645–682 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Alghamdi, M.A., Alshehri, N.O., Akram, M.: Multi-criteria decision-making methods in bipolar fuzzy environment. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(6), 2057–2064 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shieh, J.-I., Wu, H.-H., Huang, K.-K.: A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowl.-Based Syst. 23(3), 277–282 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ramalingam, D., Arun, S., Anbazhagan, N.: A novel approach for optimizing governance, risk management and compliance for enterprise information security using DEMATEL and FoM. Procedia Comput. Sci. 134, 365–370 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yang, X., Yan, L., Zeng, L.: How to handle uncertainties in AHP: the Cloud Delphi hierarchical analysis. Inf. Sci. 222, 384–404 (2013)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhao, J., et al.: Water resources risk assessment model based on the subjective and objective combination weighting methods. Water Resources Manag. 30(9), 3027–3042 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Von Altrock, C.: Fuzzy logic and neurofuzzy applications in business and finance. (1997)

  37. Ruspini, E.H., Bezdek, J.C., Keller, J.M.: Fuzzy clustering: a historical perspective. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 14(1), 45–55 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Amo, A.D., et al.: Fuzzy classification systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(2), 495–507 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim, E., et al.: A new approach to fuzzy modeling. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 5(3), 328–337 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Škrjanc, I., et al.: Evolving fuzzy and neuro-fuzzy approaches in clustering, regression, identification, and classification: a survey. Inf. Sci. 490, 344–368 (2019)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Wan, S.-P., Wang, F., Dong, J.-Y.: A preference degree for intuitionistic fuzzy values and application to multi-attribute group decision making. Inf. Sci. 370, 127–146 (2016)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Wan, S., Dong, J.: Additive consistent interval-valued Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation and likelihood comparison algorithm based group decision making. In: Decision Making Theories and Methods Based on Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. pp. 215–242 (2020)

  43. Keshavarzfard, R., Makui, A.: An IF-DEMATEL-AHP based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs). Decis. Sci. Lett. 4(2), 237–246 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pamucar, D., Chatterjee, K., Zavadskas, E.K.: Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127, 383–407 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Karaşan, A., Kahraman, C.: A novel intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS integrated methodology for freight village location selection. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 36(2), 1335–1352 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Han, Y., Deng, Y.: An enhanced fuzzy evidential DEMATEL method with its application to identify critical success factors. Soft Comput. 22(15), 5073–5090 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hatefi, S.M., Tamošaitienė, J.: An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-fuzzy ANP model for evaluating construction projects by considering interrelationships among risk factors. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 25(2), 114–131 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thompson, J.B.: Hermeneutics and the human sciences: essays on language, action and interpretation. (1981)

  49. Schleiermacher, F.: Hermeneutics and criticism and other writings. (1998)

  50. Levy, Y., Ellis, T.J.: A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Inf. Sci. 9, 181–212 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lindseth, A., Norberg, A.: A phenomenological hermeneutical method for researching lived experience. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 18(2), 145–153 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zadeh, L.A.: Is there a need for fuzzy logic? Inf. Sci. 178(13), 2751–2779 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1(1), 3–28 (1978)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Dubois, D.J.: Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 144. Academic Press, Cambridge (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Liao, M.-S., Liang, G.-S., Chen, C.-Y.: Fuzzy grey relation method for multiple criteria decision-making problems. Qual. Quan. 47(6), 3065–3077 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146(1), 281–292 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Saaty, T.L.: The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: the AHP/ANP approach. Operat. Res. 61(5), 1101–1118 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Chiu, W.Y., Tzeng, G.H., Li, H.L.: A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowl.-Based Syst. 37(4), 48–61 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Tsai, W.H., Tian, G.: The role of China’s County-level research offices in policy adaptation. J. Chin. Polit. Sci. 27, 1–19 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Arshed, N.: The origins of policy ideas: the importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK. J. Bus. Res. 71, 74–83 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hernando, M.G., Pautz, H., Stone, D.: Think tanks in ’hard times’—the Global Financial Crisis and economic advice. Policy Soc. 37(2), 125–139 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Events, I.: The role of think tanks and technical experts in foreign and security policy. (2016)

  63. Wuthnow, J., Chen, D.D.: China’s “new-type” private think tanks: is “new” better? J. Chin. Polit. Sci. 26(2), 373–391 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zhu, X.F.: Think tanks in politically embedded knowledge regimes: does the “revolving door” matter in China? Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 86(2), 295–315 (2020)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Almiron, N., et al.: Dominant counter-frames in influential climate contrarian European think tanks Dominant counter-frames in influential climate contrarian European think tanks. Clim. Change. 162(4), 2003–2020 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Nicander, L.: The role of think tanks in the U.S. security policy environment. Int. J. Intell. Counterintell. 28(3), 480–501 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gromping, M., Halpin, D.R.: Do think tanks generate media attention on issues they care about? Mediating internal expertise and prevailing governmental agendas. Policy Sci. 54(4), 849–866 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Carroll, W.K., Graham, N., Shakespear, M.: Mapping the environmental field: networks of foundations, ENGOs and think tanks. Can. Rev. Sociol.-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie. 58(3), 284–305 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ross, T.J.: Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Gumus, T., et al.: A combined fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-GRA methodology for hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey. Energies 6(6), 3017–3032 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Saaty, T.: Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, pp. 15–35. Springer, Dordrecht (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S.: An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 182, 435–448 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ali, S.A., et al.: GIS-based comparative assessment of flood susceptibility mapping using hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach, naïve Bayes tree, bivariate statistics and logistic regression: a case of Topľa basin, Slovakia. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106620 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, C.-Y.: Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems. Ann. Oper. Res. 197(1), 159–190 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Mohammadfam, I., et al.: Investigating interactions among vital variables affecting situation awareness based on Fuzzy DEMATEL method. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 74, 102842 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have greatly improved our paper. This work was supported by Xi’an Social Science Planning Fund Project (Grant Number 23GL43), Philosophy and Social Science Research Project of Shaanxi Province (Grant Number 2023QN0091), Scientific Research Project of Shaanxi Provincial Education Department (Grant Number 22JT038), and Educational reform project of Xian University of Posts and Telecommunications (Grant Number YJGJ2022037).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Xi’an University of Posts and Telecommunications, School of Economics and Management, Xi’an, 710061, China

    Shan Du & Xiaotong Li

Authors
  1. Shan Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaotong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shan Du.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Du, S., Li, X. A New Hybrid Hermeneutic-Fuzzy-DANP Model Based Key Influencing Factors Evaluation and Ranking of Soft Science Institute. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 25, 3016–3035 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-023-01553-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-023-01553-7

Keywords