Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI

Filters
1
Reset filters

Settings
Now showing 1 - 10 of 302
  • Publication
    Tests and confidence intervals for a class of scientometric, technological and economic specialization ratios
    ( 2011)
    Schubert, T. orcid-logo
    ;
    Grupp, H.
    In economic, scientometric and innovation research, often so-called specialization indices are used. These indices measure comparative strengths or weaknesses as well as specialization profiles of the observation units with respect to certain criteria, such as patenting and publication or trade activities. They allow question like: is Germany specialized in the export of motor vehicles? Or is the UK specialized in biotech patents? Unfortunately, little is known about their statistical properties, which makes valid inferencing difficult. In this article we prove asymptotic normality for a certain class of scientometric, technological and some economic, though nonmonetary, specialization indices. We provide asymptotic confidence intervals and demonstrate in an example how to obtain statistically sound results. We will also address the problem of normalization of these indicators. All procedures proposed are provided in an add on package for R statistical environment.
  • Publication
    Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance
    ( 2010)
    Grupp, H.
    ;
    Schubert, T. orcid-logo
    The purpose of this contribution is to present a survey of the recent developments in constructing composite science and technology (S&T) indicators on a national level as well as new evidence of the variability of such S&T indicators which opens the gateway to "country-tuning". It has become standard practice to combine several indicators for science, technology, and innovation to form composite numbers. Especially in the light of this variability, two questions arise. Firstly, are the results (especially rankings) stable with respect to weights? Secondly, is there hope to define "economically" reasonable weights? In order to provide answers to these questions, we use data from the European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 (EIS 2005) to exemplify our reasoning. Concerning the first question, we give genuine evidence on the existence of immense variability, possibly invalidating the results. Further, we also show that even existing and well-accepted methods, like equal weighting, Benefit of the Doubt weighting (BoD) and principal component analysis weighting (PCA) may lead to drastically differing results. Concerning the second question we will demonstrate that by each composite indicator weighting a set of shadow prices is implied expressing one indicator in terms of another. Whether the weights are sensible should be evaluated on the basis of these shadow prices. It turns out that those implied by EIS 2005 contain strange peculiarities. After that we plead for more care in constructing composite indicators. Especially weights should be chosen on the basis of shadow prices, rather than, say, by equal weighting or other automatic methods. Lastly, we discuss the merit of composite indicators and argue that they have a valuable communication and competition function, but they should be accompanied by multidimensional representations, which provide the basis for the construction of policy measures
  • Publication
    Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany. Report 2009
    (EFI Geschäftsstelle, 2009)
    Achleitner, A.-K.
    ;
    Allmendinger, J.
    ;
    Grupp, H.
    ;
    Harhoff, D.
    ;
    Llerena, P.
    ;
    Luther, J.
    ;
    Schmoch, U. orcid-logo
  • Publication
    Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit 2009
    (EFI, 2009)
    Achleitner, A.-K.
    ;
    Allmendinger, J.
    ;
    Grupp, H.
    ;
    Harhoff, D.
    ;
    Llerena, P.
    ;
    Luther, J.
    ;
    Meurer, P.
    ;
    Schmoch, U. orcid-logo
    ;
    Stenke, G.
    ;
    Ulbricht, L.
  • Publication
    Defining regional research priorities: A new approach
    ( 2009)
    Grupp, H.
    ;
    Hinze, S.
    ;
    Breitschopf, B. orcid-logo
    This paper outlines a new approach to defining research priorities at a regional level. The methodical approach relies on a combination of bibliometric indicators and qualitative data and aims at the identification, selection and evaluation of medium-term relevant research fields. This type of analysis of quantitative and qualitative data contributes to what is called evidence-based policy making. By linking bibliometric information with questionnaire-based assessments by more than 480 scientists in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg (Germany), strategic research fields were pre-selected for potential policy action. Overall, the study shows that strategic decisions for shaping and advancing research processes demand not only methodical proficiency in bibliometrics but also a broad knowledge of the structure of the research landscape and forward thinking on a broad canvas.
  • Publication
    Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing
    ( 2009)
    Frietsch, R.
    ;
    Haller, I.
    ;
    Funken-Vrohlings, M.
    ;
    Grupp, H.
    Measuring the output of men and women in science and technology has previously been mostly restricted to case studies or small-scale surveys. Based on an analysis of patent and publication databases, this paper applies a methodology to systematically assign the gender to the names of inventors and authors. The method is applied to 14 countries. The results of this investigation reveal substantial differences across countries in terms of women's relative contribution(1) to science and technology, with the central European countries of Germany, Austria and Switzerland all ranking comparatively low in this respect. We also examine trends over time, showing that the data on women's share of publications - unlike the results for patents - hardly increase over time for the already better-performing nations.
  • Publication
    Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany. Report 2008
    (EFI Geschäftsstelle, 2008)
    Achleitner, A.-K.
    ;
    Allmendinger, J.
    ;
    Grupp, H.
    ;
    Harhoff, D.
    ;
    Luther, J.
    ;
    Soete, L.
    ;
    Schmoch, U. orcid-logo
  • Publication
    Mathematical modeling of innovation dynamics. Final Report
    (Fraunhofer ISI, 2008)
    Grupp, H.
    ;
    Schmoch, U. orcid-logo
    ;
    Bertram, B.
    ;
    Haller, I.
  • Publication
    Science and technology in standardization: A statistical analysis of merging knowledge structures
    ( 2008)
    Gamber, T.
    ;
    Friedrich-Nishio, M.
    ;
    Grupp, H.
    The objective of this paper is to depict the knowledge array of standards. This is done by identifying and analyzing external effects, specifically spillover effects. The database used is Perinorm. We use a cluster analysis in order to create groups of technology fields for German standards according to the fields of the International Classification of Standards. Methodologically, the distances between these objects or clusters are defined by the chosen distance measure, which in turn is determined by the sum of their cross references. The applied joining clustering method uses these distances between the objects and allows the data to be mapped within a two dimensional space. The results of this mapping show the existence of structures within the standards data fitting to the well-known structure of patent spillovers.