IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i5p343-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are the concepts basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics

Author

Listed:
  • Magnus Gulbrandsen
  • Svein Kyvik

Abstract

Categorisations of research have existed for a long time and have in particular been influential since the first international R&D statistics manual was developed. However, the definitions and categorisations have come under increasing pressure. Scientists and policy-makers alike have claimed that the distinction between basic research, applied research and experimental development is increasingly irrelevant and based on misconceptions about modern knowledge production. Despite the debate there is little empirical analysis of these issues. This article fills a major gap in the literature by addressing research classifications from an empirical point of view, using two surveys among academic staff in Norwegian universities. Even though a majority of academic staff members are able to use the research categories when describing own activities, most carry out a seemingly complex mix of different R&D. This has important implications for policy and for statistical and evaluative analysis of research work. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Magnus Gulbrandsen & Svein Kyvik, 2010. "Are the concepts basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(5), pages 343-353, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:5:p:343-353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X501171
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.
    2. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    3. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Jos Winnink, 2016. "Twenty-first century macro-trends in the institutional fabric of science: bibliometric monitoring and analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2181-2194, December.
    4. Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2018. "Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1626-1638.
    5. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    6. Gabriele Angori & Chiara Marzocchi & Laura Ramaciotti & Ugo Rizzo, 2024. "A patent-based analysis of the evolution of basic, mission-oriented, and applied research in European universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 609-641, April.
    7. Martina Halaskova & Beata Gavurova & Kristina Kocisova, 2020. "Research and Development Efficiency in Public and Private Sectors: An Empirical Analysis of EU Countries by Using DEA Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:5:p:343-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.