Analysis and classification of public research institutes

World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-16

  Coccia, Mario ^a  

^a CNR   (Italy)

Author keywords

cluster analysis; principal component analysis; public research institute; public research sector; research evaluation; research policy; taxonomy of research institutes

Indexed keywords

EID: 37549013508     PISSN: 17412242     EISSN: 17412234     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/WRSTSD.2006.008759     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Arrow, K. (1962) ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention’, in Nelson, R.R. (Ed.): The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Ball, R. and Wilkinson, R. (1994) ‘The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK higher education’, Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.417–427.
3. Balthasar, A., Bättig, C., Thierstein, A. and Wilhelm, B. (2000) ‘Developers’: key actors of the innovation process. Types of developers and their contacts to institutions involved in research and development, continuing education and training, and the transfer of technology’, Technovation, Vol. 20, No. 10, pp.523–538.
4. Coccia, M. (2001a) ‘A basic model for evaluating R&D performance: theory and application in Italy’, R&D Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.453–464.
5. Coccia, M. (2001b) ‘Satisfaction, work involvement and R&D performance’, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 2–4, pp.268–282.
6. Coccia, M. (2004) ‘Models for measuring the research performance and management of public institutions’, R&D Management, Blackwell Publishers (UK), Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.267–280.
7. Coccia, M. and Rolfo, S. (2002) ‘Technology transfer analysis in the Italian National Research Council’, Technovation, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.291–299.
8. Crow, M.M. and Bozeman, B.L. (1987) ‘A new typology for R&D laboratories: implications for policy analysts’, Journal of policy analysis and management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.328–341.
9. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) ‘The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.109–123.
10. Hare, P.G. and Wyatt, G.J. (1992) ‘Economics of academic research and its implications for higher education’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.48–66.
11. Harris, G. and Kaine, G. (1994) ‘The determinants of research performance: a study of Australian university economists’, Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.191–201.
12. Jarrat Report (1985) Report of Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in University, CVCP, London.
13. Lucas, R. (1988) ‘On the mechanics of the economic development’, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.3–42.
14. Lundvall, B. (1992) National Systems of Innovation, Pinter Publishers, London.
15. Lundvall, B.A. and Johnson, B. (1993) ‘Catching-up and institutional learning under post-socialism’, in Hauser, J., Jessop, B. and Nielsen, K. (Eds.): Institutional Frameworks of Market Economies, Avebury, Aldershot.
16. Luwel, M., Noyons, C.M. and Moed, F. (1999) ‘Bibliometric assessment of research performance in Flanders: policy background and implications’, R&D Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.133–141.
17. Morris Report (1990) Performance Indicators, Report of a Committee Enquiry Chaired by Mr. Alfred Morris, PCFC.
18. Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
19. Romer P.M. (1990) ‘Endogenous technological change’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 5, pp.71–102.
20. Senker, J. (2001) Changing Organisation of Public Sector Research in Europe-Implications for Benchmarking Human Resources in RTD, Paper prepared for Human resources in RTD session of the ‘The contribution of European socio-economic research to the benchmarking of RTD policies in Europe, Conference, Brussels, 15–16 March.
21. SPSS Statistical package (2005) SPSS inc., SPSS 8.0 Guide to Data Analysis, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
22. Ward, J.H. (1963) ‘Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function’, J. Am. Statist. Assoc, Vol. 58, No. 301, pp.236–244.
23. Self-financing is a output because represents the revenue deriving from technology transfer activities (know-how, licensing, etc.).
24. Size is measured by the number of personnel and governmental funds.