The development of science and technology indicators in the Caribbean

Includes bibliography

Manual for the compilation of science and technology indicators in the Caribbean

Includes bibliography

Technology professional development for principals: Impact on the integration of technology in elementary schools

The use of technology in schools is no longer the topic of educational debates, but how to ensure that technology is used effectively continues to be the focal point of discussions. The role of the principal in facilitating the successful integration of technology in the school is well established. To that end, the Florida Department of Education implemented the FloridaLeaders.net: a three-year professional development project in technology for school administrators. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of this professional development project on integrating technology in elementary schools. ^ The study compared a group of schools whose principals have participated in the FloridaLeaders.net (FLN) program with schools whose principals have not participated in the program. The National Technology Standards for School Administrators and the National Technology Standards for Teachers were used as the framework to assess technology integration. ^ The sample consisted of three groups of educators: principals (n = 47), media specialists (n = 110), and teachers (n = 167). Three areas of technology utilization were investigated: (a) the use of technology in management and operations, (b) the use of technology in teaching and learning, and (c) the use of technology for assessment and evaluation. Analyses of variances were used to examine the differences in the perceptions and use of technology in each of the three areas, among the three groups of educators. ^ The findings indicated that the difference between FLN and non-FLN schools was not statistically significant in most of the technology indicators. The difference was however significant in two cases: (a) The use of technology for assessment and evaluation, and (b) The level of technology infrastructure in FLN schools. Additionally, all FLN and non-FLN groups reported the need for technology training for teachers to provide them with the necessary "know-how" to effectively integrate technology into the classrooms. ^ These findings would indicate that FloridaLeaders.net was not effective in integrating technology in schools over and above other current efforts. It is therefore concluded that the FLN project had some favorable impact but had not met all of its stated objectives. ^

Agricultural R&D indicators factsheet: Brazil.

Brazil's agricultural research system is by far the region's largest, in terms of both research capacity and spending. Almost half of all agricultural researchers are employed by the main federal government agency, Embrapa, and a further quarter are employed by the state agricultural research organizations (OEPAS). During 2006-2013, agricultural R&D spending rose by 43 percent due to growth at Embrapa and in the higher education sector, particularly among federal universities. At 1.82 percent, spending as a share of AgGDP is the highest in Latin America.

Knowledge Licensing in a Model of R&D-driven Endogenous Growth

In this paper I present an endogenous growth model where the engine of growth is in-house R&D performed by high-tech firms. I model knowledge (patent) licensing among high-tech firms. I show that if there is knowledge licensing, high-tech firms innovate more and economic growth is higher than in cases when there are knowledge spillovers or there is no exchange of knowledge among high-tech firms. However, in case when there is knowledge licensing the number of high-tech firms is lower than in cases when there are knowledge spillovers or there is no exchange of knowledge.

Knowledge Licensing in a Model of R&D-driven Endogenous Growth

In this paper I present an endogenous growth model where the engine of growth is in-house R&D performed by high-tech firms. I model knowledge (patent) licensing among high-tech firms. I show that if there is knowledge licensing, high-tech firms innovate more and economic growth is higher than in cases when there are knowledge spillovers or there is no exchange of knowledge among high-tech firms. However, in case when there is knowledge licensing the number of high-tech firms is lower than in cases when there are knowledge spillovers or there is no exchange of knowledge.

Are R&D collaborative agreements persistent at the firm level? Empirical evidence for the Spanish case

We provide evidence on the dynamics in firms’ R&D cooperation behaviour. Our main objective is to analyse if R&D collaborative agreements are persistent at the firm level, and in such a case, to study what are the main drivers of this phenomenon. R&D cooperation activities at the firm level can be persistent due to true state dependence, this implying that cooperating in a given period enhances the probability of doing it in the subsequent period and it can also be a consequence of firms’ individual heterogeneity, so that certain firms have certain characteristics that make them more likely to carry out technological alliances.

Are R&D collaborative agreements persistent at the firm level? Empirical evidence for the Spanish case

We provide evidence on the dynamics in firms’ R&D cooperation behaviour. Our main objective is to analyse if R&D collaborative agreements are persistent at the firm level, and in such a case, to study what are the main drivers of this phenomenon. R&D cooperation activities at the firm level can be persistent due to true state dependence, this implying that cooperating in a given period enhances the probability of doing it in the subsequent period and it can also be a consequence of firms’ individual heterogeneity, so that certain firms have certain characteristics that make them more likely to carry out technological alliances.

The Impact of Doing Business Regulations on Investments in ICT

null

EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL INTENSITY OF EXPORTS IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR

ABSTRACT One of the fastest growing sectors in the domestic industry is the forestry, which has contributed significantly to economic development, job creation, income taxes, putting Brazil in a prominent position in the world market. This paper analyzes the evolution of the technological intensity of 12 main products exported by the sector, from 2000 to 2011. For that, utilizes an indicator called PRODY, which allows classifying different products according to their technological intensity or income content and considers the GDP per capita of exporting countries of each product, weighted by its revealed comparative advantage. It can be seen by the results, a continuous growth in all products' technology indicators and their decomposition into income effects, comparative advantage and joint effects, allowed to verify the main causes of this growth. Products with lower PRODY values are those that presented a higher evolution during the period studied. Products of higher processing, and those from pulp and paper industry, had greater technological advances, thanks to a joint effect, while the ones of lower processing, had a technological improvement due to the increase in GDP per capita in exporting countries. Sawn wood was the standout product, being the only one who proved to be dependent of comparative advantage effect, confirming that this industry has been reinventing itself and incorporating, in fact, more technology. This study revealed the importance of technological intensification to generate comparative advantage and be able to stand against international competition.

How composite indicators of innovation can influence technology policy decision?

Based on the report for Project III of the PhD programme on Technology Assessment and prepared for the Winter School that took place at Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica Campus on the 6th and 7th of December 2010.

Decision making processes based on innovation indicators: which implications for technology assessment?

Based on the report for “Project IV” unit of the PhD programme on Technology Assessment. This thesis research has the supervision of António Moniz (FCT-UNL and ITAS-KIT) and Manuel Laranja (ISEG-UTL). Other members of the thesis committee are Stefan Kuhlmann (Twente University), Leonhard Hennen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology-ITAS), Tiago Santos Pereira (Universidade de Coimbra/CES) and Cristina Sousa (FCT-UNL).

The use of indicators and evidence in governance and policy development of science, technology and innovation

This paper was first presented at the 2012 – EU SPRI Conference “Towards Transformative Governance? - Responses to mission-oriented innovation policy paradigms”, Fraunhofer ISI, June 2012, Karlsruhe

Decisions of technology innovation: the role of indicators

This work presents research conducted to understand the role of indicators in decisions of technology innovation. A gap was detected in the literature of innovation and technology assessment about the use and influence of indicators in this type of decision. It was important to address this gap because indicators are often frequent elements of innovation and technology assessment studies. The research was designed to determine the extent of the use and influence of indicators in decisions of technology innovation, to characterize the role of indicators in these decisions, and to understand how indicators are used in these decisions. The latter involved the test of four possible explanatory factors: the type and phase of decision, and the context and process of construction of evidence. Furthermore, it focused on three Portuguese innovation groups: public researchers, business R&D&I leaders and policymakers. The research used a combination of methods to collect quantitative and qualitative information, such as surveys, case studies and social network analysis. This research concluded that the use of indicators is different from their influence in decisions of technology innovation. In fact, there is a high use of indicators in these decisions, but lower and differentiated differences in their influence in each innovation group. This suggests that political-behavioural methods are also involved in the decisions to different degrees. The main social influences in the decisions came mostly from hierarchies, knowledge-based contacts and users. Furthermore, the research established that indicators played mostly symbolic roles in decisions of policymakers and business R&D&I leaders, although their role with researchers was more differentiated. Indicators were also described as helpful instruments to conduct a reasonable interpretation of data and to balance options in innovation and technology assessments studies, in particular when contextualised, described in detail and with discussion upon the options made. Results suggest that there are four main explanatory factors for the role of indicators in these decisions: First, the type of decision appears to be a factor to consider when explaining the role of indicators. In fact, each type of decision had different influences on the way indicators are used, and each type of decision used different types of indicators. Results for policy-making were particularly different from decisions of acquisition and development of products/technology. Second, the phase of the decision can help to understand the role indicators play in these decisions. Results distinguished between two phases detected in all decisions – before and after the decision – as well as two other phases that can be used to complement the decision process and where indicators can be involved. Third, the context of decision is an important factor to consider when explaining the way indicators are taken into consideration in policy decisions. In fact, the role of indicators can be influenced by the particular context of the decision maker, in which all types of evidence can be selected or downplayed. More importantly, the use of persuasive analytical evidence appears to be related with the dispute existent in the policy context. Fourth and last, the process of construction of evidence is a factor to consider when explaining the way indicators are involved in these decisions. In fact, indicators and other evidence were brought to the decision processes according to their availability and capacity to support the different arguments and interests of the actors and stakeholders. In one case, an indicator lost much persuasion strength with the controversies that it went through during the decision process. Therefore, it can be argued that the use of indicators is high but not very influential; their role is mostly symbolic to policymakers and business decisions, but varies among researchers. The role of indicators in these decisions depends on the type and phase of the decision and the context and process of construction of evidence. The latter two are related to the particular context of each decision maker, the existence of elements of dispute and controversies that influence the way indicators are introduced in the decision-making process.