IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00278727.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is academic judgment sound ? Evidence from technological agenda settings by experts

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Rondé

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, GRAICO - Groupe de recherche sur l'apprentissage, l'innovation et la connaissance dans les organisations - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar)

  • Caroline Hussler

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, RECITS - Recherches et Etudes sur le Changement Industriel, Technologique et Sociétal - UTBM - Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbeliard)

Abstract

This paper is devoted to an evaluation of the reliability and legitimacy of scientific assessment in a technological policy context. Thanks to a foresight inquiry gathering more than 58000 opinions of French experts about technological priorities for the future, we examine whether technological agendas selected by academic experts coincide with industrial priorities, on the one hand and social needs on the other hand. We conclude on the (positive and negative) consequences of entrusting solely academia with the selection of national technological agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Rondé & Caroline Hussler, 2007. "Is academic judgment sound ? Evidence from technological agenda settings by experts," Post-Print hal-00278727, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00278727
    DOI: 10.3152/030234207X190522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00278727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.