Innovation in Innovation Indicators? The use of sensitivity analysis to analyse the coherence of composite indices and dominant policy discourses

Leiden Repository

Innovation in Innovation Indicators? The use of sensitivity analysis to analyse the coherence of composite indices and dominant policy discourses

Type: Article in monograph or in proceedings
Title: Innovation in Innovation Indicators? The use of sensitivity analysis to analyse the coherence of composite indices and dominant policy discourses
Author: Vertesy D.Damioli G.
Journal Title: STI 2018 Conference Proceedings
Start Page: 1478
End Page: 1487
Publisher: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)
Issue Date: 2018-09-11
Keywords: Scientometrics
Abstract: Composite Indicators are ever more diffused tools that not only measure phenomena such as innovation, but also shape discussions, policy design and implementation. The synthesis that emerges from the debate about their strengths and weaknesses recognized their intrinsic normative nature, and underlines the need for exercising conceptual and statistical clarity and transparency, and responsible use. In this paper, we consider composite indicator rankings as “fingerprints” of the values, ideas and priorities shared by the stakeholders involved in their development. Thus, we expect composite innovation indicators not only to reflect policy priorities through the underlying indicators that are the most important drivers of rankings, but also to be able to observe policy priority changes reflected in changes in the key drivers of ranks. We identify 3 key innovation policy priorities over the past two decades. By applying sensitivity analysis, we identify the statistically most important component indicators of two of the most widely used composite indices, the Summary Innovation Index and the Global Innovation Index. Examining these indicators, we find that neither of the two indices followed shifts in the innovation policy discourse from a focus on R&D to a focus on job creation. This discrepancy calls for both a better measurement of Schumpeterian Mark I entrepreneurship and firm scale-up activity at the country level, and the need for better communicating non-correlating measures of innovation.
Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/1887/65218
 

Files in this item

Description Size View
application/pdf STI2018_paper_240.pdf 990.7Kb View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)