journal article·2011-12

An evaluation scheme for nanotechnology policies

Ali M. Soltani, Seyed H. Tabatabaeian, Payam Hanafizadeh, Jahanyar Bamdad Soofi

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 13· Issue 12
Publisher page

Abstract

Dozens of countries are executing national nanotechnology plans. No rigorous evaluation scheme for these plans exists, although stakeholders—especially policy makers, top-level agencies and councils, as well as the society at large—are eager to learn the outcome of these policies. In this article, we recommend an evaluation scheme for national nanotechnology policies that would be used to review the whole or any component part of a national nanotechnology plan. In this scheme, a component at any level of aggregation is evaluated. The component may be part of the plan’s overarching policy goal, which for most countries is to create wealth and improve the quality of life of their nation with nanotechnology. Alternatively, the component may be a programme or an activity related to a programme. The evaluation could be executed at different times in the policy’s life cycle, i.e., before the policy is formulated, during its execution or after its completion. The three criteria for policy evaluation are appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness. The evaluator should select the appropriate qualitative or quantitative methods to evaluate the various components of national nanotechnology plans.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Construction Project Management and Performance · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (54)

Show source-provided references
1. Appelquist J (2004) The new agenda for evaluation of innovation and growth policies: methods for a process-oriented and systemic approach. Public research and innovation policy for the good of society: how to assess the way forward? Stockholm
2. Arnold E (2004) Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Res Eval 13(1):3–1710.3152/147154404781776509 ↗
3. Arnold E, Guy K (1997) Technology diffusion programmes and the challenge for evaluation. In: OECD conference on policy evaluation practices in innovation and technology, Paris
4. Bassecoulard E, Lelu A et al (2007) Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics 70(3):859–88010.1007/s11192-007-0315-1 ↗
5. Becker HA and Vanclay F (2006) The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
6. BIS (2010) Impact assessment toolkit; a guide to undertaking an impact assessment and completing the IA template. Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills, London
7. Bogart L (1972) Polls and the awareness of public opinion. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
8. Bovens M, Hart Pt et al (2006) The politics of policy evaluation. The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
9. Capron H, de la Potterie BVP (1999) Public support to R&D programmes: an integrated assessment scheme. Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: towards best practices, pp 35–47
10. Compano R, Hullmann A (2002) Forecasting the development of nanotechnology with the help of science and technology indicators. Nanotechnology 13:243–24710.1088/0957-4484/13/3/301 ↗
11. Cunion KM (1995) UK government departments experience of RT&D programme evaluation and methodology. Scientometrics 34(3):363–37410.1007/BF02018005 ↗
12. EATON DL (2008) Review of federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
13. EC (2008) Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, Commission of the European Communities
14. Fahrenkrog G, Polt W et al (2002) RTD evaluation toolbox. European Commission, Seville
15. Georghiou L (1998) Issues in the evaluation of innovation and technology policy. Int J Theor Res Pract 4:37–52
16. Georghiou L, Keenan M (2006) Evaluation of national foresight activities: assessing rationale, process and impact. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(7):76110.1016/j.techfore.2005.08.003 ↗
17. Georghiou L, Roessner D (2000) Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Res Policy 29(4–5):657–67810.1016/S0048-7333(99)00094-3 ↗
18. Huang C and Wu Y (2010) Sure bet or scientometric mirage? An assessment of Chinese progress in nanotechnology. United Nations University-MERIT Working Paper. Maastricht
19. Hullmann A (2006) The economic development of nanotechnology—an indicators based analysis. EU report
20. Hullmann A (2007) Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 70(3):739–75810.1007/s11192-007-0310-6 ↗
21. Hullmann A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology. Scientometrics 58(3):507–52710.1023/B:SCIE.0000006877.45467.a7 ↗
22. INIC (2005) The future strategy: The Islamic Republic of Iran’s ten-year nanotechnology development plan 2006–2015 from http://en.nano.ir
23. INIC (2008) The future strategy 2: The Islamic Republic of Iran’s ten-year nanotechnology development plan 2009–2015 from http://en.nano.ir
24. ISO (2007) ISO/TC 229 business plan, international organization for standardization (ISO)
25. ISO (2008) Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate, ISO/TC229. TS27687
26. Kay L, Shapira P (2009) Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. J Nanopart Res 11(2):259–27810.1007/s11051-008-9503-z ↗
27. Lengrand L (2006) Smart innovation: a practical guide to evaluating innovation programmes. European Commission, European Communitoes, Brussels-Luxembourg
28. Li X, Lin Y et al (2007) Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). J Nanopart Res 9(6):977–100210.1007/s11051-007-9273-z ↗
29. Lipsey R, Carlaw K (2002) Conceptual basis of technology policy. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby
30. Marchant GE, White A (2011) An international nanoscience advisory board to improve and harmonize nanotechnology oversight. J Nanopart Res 13(4):1–1010.1007/s11051-011-0226-1 ↗
31. Marinova D, McAleer M (2003) Nanotechnology strength indicators. Nanotechnology 14(1):R1–R710.1088/0957-4484/14/1/201 ↗
32. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB (1999) Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Eval Prog Plan 22(1):65–7210.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1 ↗
33. Mehta MD (2002) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bull Sci Technol Soc 22(4):269–27310.1177/027046760202200402 ↗
34. Meyer M (2007) What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics 70(3):779–81010.1007/s11192-007-0312-4 ↗
35. Miyazaki K, Nazrulislam (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27(11):661–67510.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.009 ↗
36. Momaya K (2008) Evaluating country competitiveness in emerging industries: learning from a case of nanotechnology. J Int Bus Econ 9(1):37–58
37. MOSTI-Malaysia (2010) National nanotechnology statement. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia
38. NNI (2007) The national nanotechnology initiative strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC
39. NNI (2011) The national nanotechnology initiative strategic plan. N. S. a. T. Council
40. Pagaconstantantinov G, Polt W (1997) Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: an overview. In: OECD Conference on Policy Evaluation
41. Patton MQ (1996) Evaluation use: both challenge and mandate
42. Peterson J (1993) Assessing the performance of European collaborative R&D policy: the case of Eureka. Res Policy 22(3):243–26410.1016/0048-7333(93)90027-F ↗
43. Ruegg R, Feller I et al (2003) A toolkit for evaluating public R & D investment: models, methods, and findings from ATP’s first decade. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology10.6028/NIST.GCR.03-857 ↗
44. Russ-Eft D, Preskill H (2005) In search of the holy grail: return on investment evaluation in human resource development. Adv Dev Hum Resour 7(1):7110.1177/1523422304272169 ↗
45. Sanderson I (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Adm 80(1):1–2210.1111/1467-9299.00292 ↗
46. Shadish WR Jr, Cook TD et al (1991) Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice. Sage Publications, Inc, Newbury Park
47. STPI (2009) Yearbook of science and technology Taiwan, Taiwan National Applied Research Laboratories
48. Stupp SI (2002) Small wonders, endless frontiers: a review of the national nanotechnology initiative. National Research Council, Washington, DC
49. Su HN, Lee PC et al (2007) Current situation and industrialization of Taiwan nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9(6):965–97510.1007/s11051-007-9247-1 ↗
50. Sutton R (1999) The policy process: an overview. Overseas Development Institute, London
51. TERI (2010) Nanotechnology development in India: building capability and governing the technology. TERI Briefing Paper, Canada
52. UK (2010) UK nanotechnologies strategy; small technologies, great opportunities. UK Government, London
53. Vedung E (2000) Public policy and program evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
54. Williams JC (2006) A matter of size: triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. National Research Council, Washington, DC