Thematic research prioritization in the EU and the Netherlands: an assessment on the basis of content analysis
AbstractWith the upsurge of the knowledge economy, a balanced and professional setting of science and technology research priorities is becoming increasingly important. Priority setting in general - and in the European Union Framework Programmes (FP) in particular - has often been criticized by many academics, who tend to describe them as ‘Loch Ness monsters of bureaucracy’: new granting rules and funding terminologies tend to appear almost every five years; the procedures involved in granting awards are often considered as impregnable and unclear; and the decision-making process is sometimes rather different from classical, quality- controlled peer-review systems. In practice, researchers often prefer small-scale transparant national research programmes over the European FPs, provided they are based on quality criteria. This paper aims to provide: (i) a critical overview of mechanisms for establishing priorities in research programmes (or themes); and (ii) an assessment approach to the current practices of setting research priorities in the EU and the Netherlands in particular, by means of counting procedures based on statistical content analysis. Our investigation of the EU and Dutch national theme priority-setting experiences shows that the two mechanisms are largely complementary and, as such, can prove an important stimulus for further excellence, collaboration and connectivity in the complex world of science policy.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics in its series Serie Research Memoranda with number 0023.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.feweb.vu.nl
knowledge economy; triple helix; priority setting; content analysis;
Other versions of this item:
- Hemert, P. van & Nijkamp, P., 2008. "Thematic research prioritization in the EU and the Netherlands: an assessment on the basis of content analysis," Serie Research Memoranda 0023, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stewart, Jenny, 1995. "Models of priority-setting for public sector research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 115-126, January.
- Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1996. "Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(5), pages 279-286, October.
- Sorenson, Olav & Fleming, Lee, 2004. "Science and the diffusion of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1615-1634, December.
- Kevin Morgan, 2002. "The New Regeneration Narrative - Local Development in the Multi-Level Polity," Local Economy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 191-199, August.
- Henderson, Rebecca. & Cockburn, Iain., 1994. "Measuring competence? : exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research," Working papers 3712-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Paul Romer, 1989.
"Endogenous Technological Change,"
NBER Working Papers
3210, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Faulkner, Wendy & Senker, Jacqueline, 1994. "Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 673-695, November.
- Romer, Paul M, 1986.
"Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-37, October.
- Erik Arnold & John Clark & Alessandro Muscio, 2005. "What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(5), pages 385-397, October.
- Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
- Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 167-85, March.
- Sveikauskas, Leo, 1981. "Technological Inputs and Multifactor Productivity Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 63(2), pages 275-82, May.
- Laurence Chalip, 1985. "Policy Research As Social Science: Outflanking The Value Dilemma," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(2), pages 287-308, November.
- Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
- Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
- van der Meulen, Barend & Rip, Arie, 1998. "Mediation in the Dutch science system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 757-769, December.
- Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
- Callon, M. & Laredo, P. & Rabeharisoa, V. & Gonard, T. & Leray, T., 1992. "The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 215-236, June.
- Gromicho, J.A.S. & Hoorn, J.J. van & Timmer, G.T., 2009. "Exponentially better than brute force: solving the jobshop scheduling problem optimally by dynamic programming," Serie Research Memoranda 0056, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (R. Dam).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.