Suchergebnisse

Public technology transfer and technology commercialization are attracting worldwide attention, but the research on the commercialization of technology transferred from government-funded research institutes (GRIs) to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is scarce. This study aims to identify and prioritize the factors contributing to the commercialization success of technologies transferred from GRIs to SMEs and to quantitatively present their importance. We proposed novel concepts of SMEs' and GRIs' technology commercialization proactiveness (SME TCP and GRI TCP) as two main success factors. We conducted hierarchical logistic regression analysis and decision tree analysis for 301 SME cases that adopted technology between 2013 and 2016 from Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), a representative GRI in Korea. As a result, SME TCP was measured based on technology transfer expenditure (TTE), and frequency (TTF) was confirmed to be the most important factor. In particular, the success rate was higher when TTE exceeded 151 M KRW, or TTF was three or more. In addition, the success rate varied greatly depending on GRI TCP, namely the degree and the type of GRI researchers' support. These findings can be used as primary data when establishing policies to promote cooperation between SMEs and other GRIs and provide practical implications for both technology providers and adopters.

Wide income inequality in a society has been associated with worse aggregate health. Regarding the relationship, often termed as 'the Wilkinson Hypothesis', a number of empirical findings and related systematic reviews have reached inconsistent conclusions. In addition, the Scandinavian welfare regime is expected to have better aggregate health indicators in comparison with the other welfare regimes. The expectation is largely based on the Wilkinson Hypothesis because the regime has relatively narrow income inequalities. Again, related empirical findings and systematic reviews have produced inconsistent conclusions. This article reports on two rounds of 'review of reviews' (RR) over six previous (systematic) review articles. The first round of RR found that the review articles reached divergent conclusions. The second round of RR over another set of three review articles also demonstrated that their conclusions did not reach a consensus. Neither the hypothesised Scandinavia's good health nor the Wilkinson Hypothesis was given solid empirical backing.

The case selection issue has long been neglected in cross-national welfare regime studies, despite its importance in securing validity and reliability. This article reviews thirty-three studies that produced their own welfare regime typology, and analyses their case selection practices. They can be divided into five groups in terms of their case sizes: from Esping-Andersen's (1990) original eighteen nations to 'all' nations. Three peculiar patterns can be observed in the approaches. First, more than two-thirds of studies still focus on the old set of eighteen nations, arguably ignoring emerging welfare states. Second, theoretical tension exists between 'isolationists' and 'expansionists' on the exportability of the welfare regime concept to wider cases. Lastly only a few studies have clarified and justified their case selections. It is concluded that the welfare modelling business needs to rectify the common practice of ignoring case selection issues.

In this dissertation research, I try to deepen the understanding of the logic and history behind science of science policy approaches and to substitute for this scientific evidence-based science policy model an evidence-critical and -informed model in which scientific and democratic claims are promoted simultaneously. Science of science policy, or what I call the scientizing science policy (SSP) discourse, is a strategic response of science policy community members to the following two socio-political developments: the government performance management reform movement and a new social contract of science. These two developments have motivated the science policy community to construct new science R&D management strategies that make science R&D investment more effective and economically beneficial than before. Former Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger played an important role in articulating an SSP approach at the federal level that opened up a political space for the larger SSP discourse to emerge and take hold. Other heterogeneous science policy community actors, including science agency managers and academic researchers, have also engaged and played major roles in shaping the premises, strategies, and directions that make up the SSP discourse by articulating their own approaches to SSP. The SSP discourse constitutes a series of strategies such as economizing and quantifying R&D investment decisions. In particular, to implement the ideas of performance reform and a new social contract of science in the field of science policy and management, the SSP community members have prioritized the development of data, models, and evidence related to federal R&D investment by funding studies on new scientific data, tools, and quantitative methods through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program. Interagency collaboration organized and supported by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is another key feature promoted by the SSP community. Through this research of the rise and development of the SSP discourse, I emphasize the following aspects that are relevant to both science policy practice and research community members. First, the SSP discourse demonstrates the influence of the performance reform movement on science, technology, and innovation policy and R&D management. Second, the SSP discourse has the strong potential to shift science policy makers' focus from planning and implementing to evaluating federal R&D programs. Third, the SSP discourse not only reflects, but also promotes the tendency of public policy makers, politicians, and the public to rely on scientific claims and evidence when they are engaged in discussions or policy decision making processes related to science and technology. Fourth, the SSP discourse alters the balance of authority and influence among science policy actors, including science agency managers, scientists, and executive branch offices in the decision making process on federal R&D priority and investment. Fifth, even though there are conflicts and disagreements among science policy community members on the visions and future of the NSF SciSIP program, the SSP discourse is valuable as a space in which heterogeneous science policy research and practice community members can interact, learn from each other, and collaborate to develop U.S. science, technology, and innovation policy. I conclude by proposing an evidence-critical and -informed science policy in which the SSP discourse contributes to promoting democratic values in the science policy decision process. In particular, the evidence-critical and -informed model focuses on not only using scientific data and evidence when making federal R&D decisions, but also on promoting the democratic and deliberative process in monitoring R&D activities' performance and social outcomes. In this model, I view the public as a legitimate stakeholder for evaluating federal R&D investment. This evidence-informed model can be implemented under the SSP discourse if the new R&D data, models, and tools developed by the NSF SciSIP-funded research are coupled with a new government performance website in which the public can access information about federal R&D activities as well as provide feedback about R&D investments to science policy makers. ; Ph. D.

Studies on politeness in Korean — an honorific-rich language like Japanese — have focused more on what Sohn (1995: 408) identifies as 'normative' (or discernment) politeness. Whilst these studies are illuminating, they have paid little attention to the 'dynamic' aspect of politeness. That is, they have focussed on 'static' or primarily dyadic interactions and have explored the speaker's discursive intention but paid minimal attention to the addressee's evaluation of certain utterances. The present study attempts to fill this gap by showing how multiple levels of politeness arise at 'situational, institutional, and societal levels' (Fairclough, 1989) in Korean institutional discourse. To this effect, it concentrates on the interaction between Korean Oriental medical doctors and their patients, which is a 'fruitful epistemological site' (Sunderland, 2004: 73) for the study of emerging and situated politeness in Korean. This is particularly so because in Korea traditional and Western medicine co-exist — Western medicine often being regarded as 'dominant' one — and consequently there is a 'dual medical authority' in Korean society. Employing Goffman's (1981) 'participation framework' and Davies and Harré's (1990, 1999) 'positioning theory', the present article demonstrates that the dual medical authority often obscures the 'speaker', 'addressee', and (im)politeness. of a speech act in patient–Oriental medical doctor interactions. An act that is apparently face-threatening at the situational level may not necessarily be face-threatening at the institutional level, where the 'real' addressee may be a non-present Western doctor or even Western biomedicine itself. The paper concludes that the dyadic, synchronic, and cross-sectional model of politeness on which most studies on Korean politeness rely is too simplistic and idealised. Instead, a multidimensional discursive approach to politeness should be adopted.

South Korea's World Trade Organization membership requires the "Land of the Morning Calm" to liberalize its legal market. South Korea submitted its proposal for liberalization in the spring of 2003 and planned to begin opening its legal market in 2005. However, disagreements between South Korea and other World Trade Organization members over the scope of liberalization have led to a one-year negotiation period extension, pushing back the planned market opening to early 2007. The Korean Bar Association has strongly opposed liberalization, claiming that liberalization will lead to the foreign domination of South Korea's legal market. On the other hand, most South Korean and foreign businesses, as well as foreign lawyers, have suggested that such concerns are exaggerated and that the benefits from liberalization will far outweigh its harms. Indeed, legal market liberalization will not only benefit businesses and lawyers by improving legal services quality and lowering legal costs, but it will also promote South Korea's rise as an important financial hub in East Asia. This Comment asserts that despite the potential benefits, liberalization can only be successful if South Korea simultaneously implements proper legislative revisions, reforms enforcement and oversight mechanisms, and promotes domestic firm expansion and educational reform.