2005
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-005-0238-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A fuzzy set theory approach to national composite S&T indices

Abstract: Composite science and technology (S&T) indices are essential to overall understanding and evaluation of national S&T status, and to formulation of S&T policy. However, only a few studies on making these indices have been conducted so far since a number of complications and uncertainties are involved in the work. Therefore, this study proposes a new approach to employ fuzzy set theory and to make composite S&T indices, and applies it. The approach appears to successfully integrate various S&T indicators into th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
10
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies have utilized GBAORD data for measurement and estimates of national S&T activities (e.g. Niwa and Tomizawa, 1996;Ebersberger, 2005;Moon and Lee, 2005). These data differ from the more commonly used government-financed gross domestic expenditures on research and development (GERD) in two main respects (OECD, 2002;Dinges et al, 2007): 1) government-financed GERD data are based on reports by research and development (R&D) performers, whereas GBAORD (derived from annual budgetary accounts) are based on reports by funders; 2) the GERD-based series cover only R&D performed on national territory, whereas GBAORD also includes payments to foreign performers, including international organisations [about 5-20% of the national S&T budgets of most countries are allocated to international science activities (Wagner, 2002)].…”
Section: Data and Methodology: Government Sandt Budgetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have utilized GBAORD data for measurement and estimates of national S&T activities (e.g. Niwa and Tomizawa, 1996;Ebersberger, 2005;Moon and Lee, 2005). These data differ from the more commonly used government-financed gross domestic expenditures on research and development (GERD) in two main respects (OECD, 2002;Dinges et al, 2007): 1) government-financed GERD data are based on reports by research and development (R&D) performers, whereas GBAORD (derived from annual budgetary accounts) are based on reports by funders; 2) the GERD-based series cover only R&D performed on national territory, whereas GBAORD also includes payments to foreign performers, including international organisations [about 5-20% of the national S&T budgets of most countries are allocated to international science activities (Wagner, 2002)].…”
Section: Data and Methodology: Government Sandt Budgetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Table 2, the input and output variables selected for the present research are presented. These variables selected encompass the category of finance, human resource, creativity and non-financial innovation structures as used by (Rickne 2001;Moon and Lee 2005;Afzal 2014;Carayannis et al 2015) and also published by European Commission (2018) in the latest European Innovation Scoreboard. Below is a list of inputs and output variables used for computation.…”
Section: Data Resources and Research Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More specifically, the Fuzzy Set Theory is used to reflect systematically the uncertainties and inaccuracies in the judgment process. Cases using the Fuzzy Theory in identifying the effect of policy change include (Kooten et at., 2001), who identified the effect of forest preservation policy amidst the uncertainties, and Moon and Lee (2005), who assessed expert opinions on the changes of science and technology policies of major countries around the world. Rhee et al, (2007) used the Fuzzy Set Theory to estimate the qualitative effect of the job creation policy in Korea; Rhee, (2007) discussed the possibility of applying the Fuzzy Theory in the judgment of experts on a policy effect.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%