Identifying research priorities in public sector funding agencies: Mapping science outputs on to user needs

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 139-155

  Maclean, Marlie ^c   Anderson, Joe ^a   Martin, Ben R ^b  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^c BBSRC   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012534657     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537329808524308     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. V. Bush, Science - The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research (Washington, DC, National Science Foundation, 1990; originally published 1945).
2. D. de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science (New York, Columbia University Press, 1963).
3. J. Ziman, Science in a Steady State: The Research System in Transition (London, Science Policy Support Group, 1987); J. Ziman, Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady Stale (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994).
4. J. Ziman, Science in a Steady State: The Research System in Transition (London, Science Policy Support Group, 1987); J. Ziman, Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady Stale (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994).
5. J. Anderson, R. Fears & B. Taylor, Managing Technology for Competitive Advantage (London, Financial Times Healthcare/Cartermill International, 1997).
6. H. Skoie, 'Basic Research - A New Funding Climate?', Science and Public Policy, 23, 1996, pp. 66-75.
7. M. Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation (Washington, DC, National Science Foundation, 1976).
8. D. Ryer, 'NSF's RANN Program', in: ESRC/NSF, Rise and Fall of a Priority Field (Strasbourg, European Science Foundation, 1985), pp. 53-63.
9. B. R. Martin & J. Irvine, Research Foresight: Priority-setting in Science (London, Pinter Publishers, 1989).
10. B. R. Martin, 'Foresight in Science and Technology', Technology and Strategic Management, 7, 1995, pp. 139-168.
11. Ibid.; B. R. Martin & R. Johnston, 'Technology Foresight for Wiring up the National Innovation System: Experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60 (forthcoming).
12. Ibid.; B. R. Martin & R. Johnston, 'Technology Foresight for Wiring up the National Innovation System: Experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60 (forthcoming).
13. UK Government, Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology (London, HMSO, 1993).
14. Office of Science and Technology, Progress through Partnership (London, HMSO, 1995).
15. M. MacLean, 'Linking Science Outputs and User Needs to Identify Research Priorities: The Case of NERC', MSc dissertation, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, 1995;
16. B. Martin & J. Anderson, Mapping Science Outputs onto User Needs (Swindon, NERC, 1995);
17. C. Neary, 'Transferring National Science Policies into Funding Decisions', in: J. Anderson, R. Fears & B. Taylor (Eds), Managing Technology for Competitive Advantage (London, Financial Times Healthcare, 1997).
18. Martin & Irvine, op. cit., Ref. 8.
19. Central government departments were not included in the interviews because NERC officials felt that they were already familiar with their research needs. International agencies and universities were also excluded because of the limited time and resources available for the interviews.
20. J. Anderson & N. Williams, Foresight in Science: An Experiment in the Field of Cardiovascular Research (London, Wellcome Trust, 1995).
21. Martin, op. cit., Ref. 9.
22. We explored the effect of combining the views of researchers and users on feasibility and attractiveness. This resulted in a number of relatively minor changes to the detail of Figure 3, although the overall pattern remained broadly similar. However, for the reasons given in the text, we judged it preferable to concentrate on users' assessments of attractiveness and researchers' assessments of feasibility.
23. Strictly speaking, therefore, this is not a true Delphi survey because of these changes between the first and second round and because of the addition of a few extra users. However, the modifications to the definitions were mostly very minor. Furthermore, an analysis of the results from respondents who took part in both rounds compared with those who only participated in the second round revealed little significant difference between the two sets of ratings.
24. It should be stressed that, in order to be picked for the original list, all 15 topics had to score highly in terms of attractiveness and feasibility. The two topics ranked lowest here were merely being compared with the other 13 topics, not with the much larger number of topics that failed to be included among the original 15.
25. NERC, Facts and Figures 1996-97 (Swindon, NERC, 1997); NERC, Environmental Directions (Swindon, NERC, 1997).
26. NERC, Facts and Figures 1996-97 (Swindon, NERC, 1997); NERC, Environmental Directions (Swindon, NERC, 1997).
27. J. Peters & M. Tricker, personal communication, 1997.
28. Like most techniques, a Delphi survey has a number of potential limitations. In particular, it may be time-consuming, have a limited response rate or produce conservative views.
29. K. M. Cunion, 'UK Government Departments' Experience of RT&D Programme Evaluation and Methodology', Scientometrics, 34, 1995, pp. 363-374.
30. F. den Hond & P. Groenewegcn, 'Environmental Technology Foresight: New Horizons for Technology Management', Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8, 1996, pp. 33-46.