Method and New Doctorate Graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics of the European Innovation Scoreboard as a Measure of Innovation Management in Subdisciplines of Management and Quality Studies

1 Introduction

The article focuses on examining sub-disciplines of management and quality studies while taking into account various factors, including methodology, techniques, and specific indicators from the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). The research aims to understand and measure innovation management, with a particular focus on specific indicators, such as “New doctorate graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) per 1,000 population aged 25–34,” “International scientific co-publications per million population,” and “Foreign doctorate students as a percentage of all doctorate students.” The article investigates how these indicators are changing over time, possibly in relation to broader trends or events, and discusses the implications and significance of these changes. Additionally, the paper explores the methodology and methods used in this analysis and their integration into various sub-disciplinary areas of management and quality studies. The overarching theme of the article revolves around the measurement and analysis of innovation within the context of management and quality studies. Contribution of the article to the literature is based on Figure 3. “Method, techniques and tools selection models for solving management problems.” Figure 3 is related to indicators of EIS, PhD Candidates graduates also thanks to international scientific co-publications and foreign internships. What is more through international scientific co-publications and foreign internships, PhD candidates can contribute to the literature on “method, techniques, and tools selection models for solving management problems.”

Lichtarski (2015, pp. 40–41) stressed that the lack of a clearer identity of management sciences and the lack of a widely accepted methodological basis for this scientific discipline is the source of many ambiguities, misunderstandings, and even conflicts in the management dissertation and habitation processes conducted in higher education (Sudoł, 2018, p. 10). This opinion is confirmed by the results of a search, e.g. google.pl, where about 24,300 results appear for the slogan “refusal to award a PhD in management and quality studies.” They concern both the award of the title of Doctor and the Habilitated Doctor.

2 Stages of the Research Procedure

The purpose of this article section is to explain the methodological aspects of research procedure. According to the adopted regulatory definition of analysis (Apanowicz, 2005, pp. 28–29; Pszczołowski, 1978, p. 15), the topic was divided into parts and examined each one separately so that one could explore (establish) the essence, cause-effect relationships and properties from some distinctive aspect, i.e. consider only one or several aspects of the events or processes studied, intentionally omitting others.

The research concept was developed in accordance with Figure 1. Exploration includes as the first point the definition of a scientific problem. A critical review of the literature and the expression of the problem studied in simple, understandable terms (concepts). The article aims to analyse subdisciplines of management and quality studies and the sub indicators of the EIS as a measure of innovation management: 1.1.1 “New doctorate graduates in STEM per 1,000 population aged 25–34,” 1.2.1 “International scientific co-publications per million population”; 1.2.3 “Foreign doctorate students as a percentage of all doctorate students.” Triangulation (diversity) of data sources, methods, and researchers were used. The article uses the following research methods: literature studies, method of document examination with secondary data analysis, descriptive analysis, comparative analysis, and cause and effect analysis.

Figure 1

Stages of the research procedure. Source: Own studies based on Kotarbiński (1961); Lisiński (2019, unpublished material).

Questions have been raised in this connection as follows:

1. How the situation looks like in different countries as far as the indicator values 1.1.1 “New doctorate graduates in STEM per 1,000 population aged 25–34” the first sub indicator of the EIS 2022 declined in 2020 is concerned?

2. How the situation look like in different countries as far as the indicators values: 1.2.1 “International scientific co-publications per million population”; 1.2.3 “Foreign doctorate students as a percentage of all doctorate students”?

3. What recommendations we could have from the findings?

The main thesis: PhD Candidates could help to increase innovation in countries thanks to international events, articles, and thesis.

3 Ideal Models – Discussion

At this location, we have a question: “What is the ideal model for choosing methods, techniques, and tools?”. Scientific research techniques were defined, for example, by Apanowicz (2005, pp. 57–58), indicating that scientific research techniques are activities, or proceedings intended for a special purpose, period, or element. They allow us to collect, organize, and store the data you need. The method is a broader and superior concept to techniques. On the other hand, research tools according to Apanowicz (2005, pp. 57–58) are instruments used to collect and store data from scientific research (objects, instruments, technical devices, measuring equipment, technical tools with software, and others used to implement research techniques). This is everything that can be used to collect, record and store facts, information, and phenomena studied. The relationship of the above concepts is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Relation of concepts: method, technique, tool of scientific research in Polish literature. Source: Own studies based on Apanowicz (2005, pp. 57–58) and Raczyńska (2023, p. 192).

However, the detailed distinction among research tools, techniques, and methods is presented differently in the literature on each subject, which can cause interpretation problems.

Ideal models (theoretical, forward-looking, and technologically realized) were defined by Nadler (1967) and used by Juchniewicz (2019, pp. 82–84), Szarucki (2016) and Trocki (1989, p. 165), according to a concept called Ideal Design of Effective and Logical Systems.

Szarucki (2016) in his model compared the methodological generality of the concept and costs related to methods selection error. Probably, we could develop that model (Figure 3) by taking into account also techniques and tool selection errors and the effectiveness of methods, techniques, and tool selection. The term “excellent” at the level of the apragmatic methodology means: non-applicable, non-existent in practice. It assumes that there are no theoretical and methodological constraints that would prevent the optimal choice of methods (Szarucki, 2016), but we probably can also say techniques and tools, in solving the management problem, as well as the greatest effectiveness of method, techniques and tools selection (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Method, techniques, and tools selection models for solving management problems. Source: Own study based on Juchniewicz (2019, pp. 82–84), Nadler (1967), Raczyńska (2021), Szarucki (2016, p. 54), and Trocki (1989, p. 165).

As Szarucki (2016, p. 54) points out that model perspective takes into account the long period during which the relevant new methods and we can also say techniques and tools will be created and modified. At present, they are not adapted to existing internal and external conditions. This is the desired model. It presents the expected methodology for the selection of methods, techniques, and tools but with lower effectiveness. In an ideal forward-looking model, the level of methodological generality is lower. The technologically feasible model, due to the greater methodological detail as opposed to the previous two ideal models, involves adapting the available methods, techniques, and tools to the management problems solved. There are additional costs resulting from the potential error of not adapting one hundred per cent of methods to the problem and it is possible to lower the effectiveness of methods and techniques selection. Among the three ideal models, this model, although of an apragmatic nature, is closest to the models implemented practically. The absence of any methods, techniques, and tools and thus the lowest methodological generality may result in the greatest costs associated with the selection of methods, techniques, and tools. This also translates into dissertations where a lack of scientific methods, techniques, and tools may result in a failure to meet the formal conditions for PhD Candidates. It has constant adaptability to changing internal and external conditions of organizations, to changes in pragmatic and apragmatic methodology of management and quality studies (Lisiński, 2013, 2016). Thus, no scientist, not even a Nobel laureate, is able to include in research all the methods, techniques, and tools that have arisen.

4 Measure of Innovation Management in Management and Quality Studies Subdisciplines

A measure of innovation management in management and quality studies subdisciplines is an ontological issue in the field of social sciences and scientific discipline management and quality studies (Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia, 2018), which are part of various subdisciplinary (Bełz et al., 2019, pp. 1–23) innovation management project and process management and methodology of Management and Quality Studies (Figure 4). This claim is confirmed by the literature on the subject.

Figure 4

Scope of thematic theoretical considerations and empirical studies conducted in selected subdisciplines. Source: Own study based on Bełz et al. (2019, pp. 1–23).

As the authors point out (Cyfert, Dyduch, Latusek-Jurczak, Niemczyk, & Sopińska, 2014, pp. 46–47) “the interpretation of the subdiscipline scheme cannot and should not be limited to a one-dimensional space only. The analysis builds the discipline of management and quality studies according to a multifaceted scheme that has creative qualities, appropriate for morphological analysis, can create new analytical sections, and reflects on new perspectives. It can be used to look for potential problems that could be analysed in a doctoral thesis.”

5 EIS as a Measure of Innovation Management

The instrument developed at the initiative of the European Commission, as part of the Lisbon Strategy, is the annual innovation scoreboard (issued in 2000–2009 and from 2016 under the name EIS, and in 2010–2015 as Innovation Union Scoreboard). The innovation table has been the subject of analysis by many authors who also signalled that the EIS has disadvantages (more broadly: Adams, Bessant, & Phelps, 2006, p. 22; Hollanders & Esser, 2007, p. 4; Marins, 2008, pp. 21–22; Rutkowska-Gurak, 2010, p. 71; Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012, p. 556). However, EIS is one of the most frequently cited analyses of this type, both in Polish and other European strategic documents (Bukowski, Szpar, & Sniegocki, 2012, p. 15; Pawlilk, 2010, p. 24). It was introduced to monitor the statistical development of the economy based on knowledge (Budziewicz-Guźlecka, 2014, p. 29).

EIS 2018 methodology was developed by Hollanders and Es-Sadki (2018), as part of The EIS for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship, and micro, small, medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) project.

In 2022, the annual EIS was published before the international conference European Research Innovation Days organized by the European Commission. EIS provides a comparative assessment of the research and innovation performance of the EU member states and the relative strengths and weaknesses of their research and innovation systems. As authors (European Commission, Hollanders, & Es-Sadki, 2022b, p. 5) have written, it helps member states assess areas in which they need to concentrate their efforts to boost their innovation performance. EIS provides a comparative analysis of innovation performance in EU countries, other European countries, and regional neighbours. The first edition of the EIS was published in 2001. Over time the measurement framework has been revised several times – the latest major revision in 2021.

EIS 2022 – Methodology Report in Section 2 discusses the measurement framework for the EIS 2022. Section 3 presents definitions for all indicators. Section 4 provides a detailed discussion of the methodology used for calculating the summary innovation index. Section 5 provides the definitions of the contextual indicators included in the EIS 2022 country profiles (European Commission et al., 2022b, p. 5).

EIS uses the latest Eurostat statistics and other internationally sources available at the time of the analysis. International sources have been used wherever possible to ensure comparability among countries. There are differences in methodology (Tables 1 and 2) so it is better not to compare results among different EIS reports (Hollanders & Es-Sadki, 2018, p. 19):

1. Data transformations have been applied to a different set of indicators.

2. The study period covered by reports is different.

3. In the case of several indicators, the data were changed in external sources from which the data presented are derived.

4. For some indicators, the data has been updated for over a year.

EIS measurement framework distinguishes among four types of activities – Framework conditions, Investments, Innovation activities, and Impacts. But the EIS 2018 is in line with the 2017 edition methodology including a total of 27 different indicators. The EIS 2022 is different because it has 12 innovation dimensions, in total 32 indicators (Table 1).

Also, performance group membership is different. For determining performance group membership, the EIS uses the following classification scheme (Table 2).

We could see that the scale for EIS 2018 and EIS 2022 doubled in terms of ranges for strong and moderate innovators (the range ending and starting, ex. for EIS 2018 at 90% and EIS 2022 at 100%). The recommended minimum changes in the scale are for strong innovators in EIS 2018: above 90–120%, EIS 2022: above 100–125%. It could be taken into account that unification (but not necessary) for moderate innovators may also be considered: ex. in EIS 2018: above 50–90%; EIS 2022: above 70–100%. Modest innovators (EIS 2018)/emerging innovators (EIS 2022) could also fall into closed ranges, i.e. EIS 2018: up to 50%, EIS 2022: up to 70%. The original name of the scale description was changed from “classification scheme” to “typology” – the scheme had doubled items.

6 Practical Approach – Results

Management and Quality Studies are eclectic, combine the achievements and traditions of many fields of science, and borrow useful elements from their own research perspective. Like other disciplines, they are subject to methodological rigour, and their area and thematic scope are strictly defined by leading theories and concepts whose assumptions are empirically verified (Cyfert et al., 2014, p. 38). The interdisciplinary management and quality studies influence the appearance of difficulties in classifying many research projects; especially since the practical problems they deal with are complex and heterogeneous (Cyfert et al., 2014, p. 39).

The European Innovation Index 2020, i.e. “New doctoral graduates per 1,000 inhabitants aged 25–34,” also indicates that the value of the index in many European countries, including Poland, was below the 2010 figure in 2017 (Figure 5).

Figure 5

European Innovation Index 2020 – New doctoral graduates per 1,000 inhabitants aged 25–34 in 2010 and 2017. Source: Own study based on Hollanders (2020).

We could look at recent 2022 sub-indicators: 1.1.1 “New doctorate graduates in STEM per 1,000 population aged 25–34”; 1.2.1 “International scientific co-publications per million population”; 1.2.3 “Foreign doctorate students as a percentage of all doctorate students,” but first at its definitions, data source, and interpretation (Table 3).

EIS 2022 explains (Figure 6) that on average, 0.7 new PhD degrees were awarded in the EU per 1,000 population aged 25–34. The highest scores are observed in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, with at least 1.6 new PhD graduates per 1,000 population aged 25–34. In Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, performance is relatively weak with less than 0.15 new PhD graduates per 1,000 population aged 25–34 (Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6

1.1.1 New doctorate graduates in STEM per 1,000 population aged 25–34. Legend: The blue columns show the value of the indicator before any possible modifications in the normalization process (e.g., due to correcting for statistical outliers) on the vertical axis on the left. The rotated squares show the relative EU scores on the vertical axis on the right. Country abbreviations: AL, Albania; AU, Australia; AT, Austria; BA, Bosnia and Herzegovina; BE, Belgium; BG, Bulgaria; BR, Brazil; CA, Canada; CH, Switzerland; CL, Chile; CN, China; CY, Cyprus; CZ, Czechia; DE, Germany; DK, Denmark; EL, Greece; EE, Estonia; ES, Spain; FI, Finland; FR, France; HR, Croatia; HU, Hungary; IE, Ireland; IL, Israel; IN, India; IS, Iceland; IT, Italy; JP, Japan; KR, South Korea; LT, Lithuania; LU, Luxembourg; LV, Latvia; ME, Montenegro; MK, North Macedonia; MT, Malta; MX, Mexico; NL, Netherlands; NO, Norway; PL, Poland; PT, Portugal; RO, Romania; RS, Serbia; SE, Sweden; SI, Slovenia; SK, Slovakia; TR, Turkey; UA, Ukraine; UK, United Kingdom; US, United States; ZA, South Africa. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022a, pp. 5, 88).

Figure 7

1.1.1 New doctorate graduates in STEM per 1,000 population aged 25–34 – performance change. Legend: The blue columns show “long-run” performance changes, i.e. the performance of the relative to EU scores in 2022 compared to the relative to EU scores in 2015. The rotated squares show “short-run” performance changes, i.e. the performance of the relative to EU scores in 2022 compared to the relative to EU scores in 2021. Country abbreviation: Like the above Figure 6. Source: European Commission et al. (2022a, pp. 5, 88).

According to Figure 8, the worst situation as far as 1.1.1 “New doctorate graduates in STEM per 1,000 population aged 25–34” (performance change by country and indicator relative to EU scores between 2015 and 2022 EIS 2022) is concerned was in Slovenia (−91.5) it was a huge decrease. In Romania, it was −57.2, and in Slovakia and Sweden –45.8.

Figure 8

1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (performance change by country and indicator relative to EU scores between 2015 and 2022 EIS 2022). Legend: A reference is made to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

EIS 2022 explains that compared to the reference year 2015, performance has increased for 13 countries and decreased for 21 countries and the EU. Performance has increased most in Luxembourg and Cyprus, and performance has decreased most in Slovenia and Romania. Compared to 2021, performance has increased for only one country, remained the same for 24 countries, and decreased for 14 countries and the EU (European Commission, Hollanders, & Es-Sadk, 2022a, p. 5). In the static graphs, real data and normalised scores are shown. Normalised scores are obtained by transforming real data such that the minimum value across all countries and years equals zero, and the maximum value equals one. In the dynamic graphs, both the change between 2022, the most recent year, and 2015, and between 2022, the most recent year, and 2021, the previous year, are shown.

We could see (Figures 9 and 10) some similarities between indicator 1.1.1 and the SII, which could mean that the fewer New doctorate graduates (indicator values by country in 2022) the worse the SII is (Figure 11).

Figure 9

1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (indicator values by country in 2022). Legend: A reference is made to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

Figure 10

Summary Innovation Index (SII) time series: normalised scores, relative to EU scores, and change over time (2022 relative to EU un 2015 – change between 2015 and 2022). Legend: A reference is made to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

Figure 11

Performance scores by country per dimension in 2022 EIS 2022. Performance is measured relative to that of the EU in 2022. Legend: A reference is made to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

The results of the EU’s EIS in 2018 (European Commission, 2018a) indicate that Poland has been in the group of “moderate innovators” since 2010 (Figure 12), i.e. countries with relative performance in 2017 between 50 and 90% of the EU average in 2017.

Figure 12

EIS indicators for Poland and EU countries according to the 2018 report. Source: Own study based on European Commission (2018a, Raczyńska, 2019).

We saw (Figures 13 and 14) in EIS 2022 in the UE and all member countries, the increase of scientific publications (which is a unique situation in EIS) like articles, including international, we may consider promoting the PhD as a connection of a few articles what is very important in Medicine, Law Engineering’s studies, other studies. Such a way is possible, but unfortunately not popular in Poland, despite article 187. point 3 Act of 20 July 2018 Law on Higher Education and Science (Ustawa z dnia (2018)): “a doctoral dissertation may consist of a written thesis, including a scientific monograph, a collection of published and thematically related scientific articles, a design, construction, technological, implementation or artistic work, as well as an independent and separate part of a collective work.”

Figure 13

1.2.1 International scientific co-publications (Indicator values by country in 2022). Legend: A reference is made to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

Figure 14

1.2.1 International scientific co-publications (Performance change by country and indicator relative to EU scores between 2015 and 2022 EIS 2022). Legend: A reference is made to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

Short-term mobilities could increase the sub-indicator 1.2.3 “Foreign doctorate students as a percentage of all doctorate students,” but also help PhD Candidates, who cannot leave a country for a long period or could help PhD Candidates during the war in Ukraine and in other countries (Figures 15 and 16). But it doesn’t mean that we need to promote wars to increase sub-indicator. Realization of the sub-indicator 1.2.3 (which was lower in some countries in 2022 compared to 2015) could help to achieve Level 8 of the Polish Classification Framework (PQF), which must be met by a doctoral candidate, i.e. (Lenart-Gansiniec, 2021, pp. 73–74): is able to plan and implement an individual and team research or creative project, lead and bear responsibility for the group, participate in the exchange of ideas, also in the international environment. EIS also has its own useful summary of the results of chosen sub-indicators (Table 4).

Figure 15

1.2.3 Foreign doctorate students (Indicator values by country in 2022). Legend: A reference is done to Figure 6. Source: Own study based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

Figure 16

1.2.3 Foreign doctorate students (Performance change by country and indicator in relative to EU scores between 2015 and 2022 EIS 2022). Legend: A reference is done to Figure 6. Source: Own studies based on European Commission et al. (2022, pp. 89–92).

7 Impact

The EU did not achieve in 2018 its assumed investment in research and development at the planned level of 3% of GDP. It amounts to 1.3% of GDP and is lower compared to China (1.6%), USA (2%), Japan (2.6%) and South Korea (3.3%). Among EU countries, Poland ranks 25th in the innovation ranking (European Commission, 2017, 2018a,b). The 2022 EIS confirms that year after year the EU remains a good place to innovate. Innovation performance has increased for the EU by about 10% points since 2015, and there has been noticeable progress in the EU’s global position. The EU has overtaken Japan and has closed part of its performance gap with South Korea and the United States (European Commission et al., 2022, p. 4). We need to remember that more (higher indicator) doesn’t always mean better innovation, as authors (European Commission et al., 2022) have written. That is why we need to take into account quality.

This article is particularly important in the context of the requirements of level 8. The PQF, which must be met by a doctoral candidate, i.e. (Lenart-Gansiniec, 2021, pp. 73–74) a doctoral candidate must be able:

1. to use scientific and creative achievements to develop existing and new research methods, techniques, and tools, and creatively apply them in practice, i.e. in the development of new materials, methods, technologies, and products;

2. to transfer the results conducted to the economic and social sphere, design legal, and organizational conditions conducive to the development of the business;

3. to plan and implement an individual and team research or creative project, lead, and bear responsibility for the group, participate in the exchange of ideas, also in the international environment;

4. to independently plan their own development and inspire and organize the development of other people, create education/training programs and conduct them using modern methods and tools;

5. and ready to maintain and develop the ethos of research and creative environments, develop and create models of good conduct in the work environment and in other environments, and make a creative contribution to the improvement of quality and culture of cooperation.

The above requirements are not an easy task due to the on-going discourse in the scientific community regarding the manner of meeting the indicated regulations, and interpretation issues to the subject, including the issue of research methods, tools, and techniques. The source of the change in the methodology of management studies was, is, and certainly will be, the development of the environment. This indisputable and unquestionable fundamental premise determines the development of economic operators, including theories and methodologies describing these changes (Lisiński, 2013, p. 164). It should be noted that any change in the development of the methodology of management sciences, which results in the emergence of a new phase of its development, is due to the breakthrough period immediately preceding it (Lisiński, 2013, p. 164). The new phase of development was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

8 Managing a European Project

From the point of view of European funds and also for grants, publications, mobility, etc. by PhD Candidates, it is worth mentioning the little-known PM² project management methodology. Guide 3.0. (Kourounakis & Maraslis, 2018), published by the European Commission on 8.10.2018 (2018c). The guide is starting to be scientifically analysed and disseminated (European Commission, 2020). The methodology was developed as part of the ISA² programme to be evaluated (Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens), interoperable solutions for European public administrations, businesses, and citizens (Renda, Simonelli, Iacob, & Campmas, 2019). The PM² methodology highlights the iterative nature of data analysis (Gras, Ravesteyn, van Steenbergen, & Bijvank, 2018, p. 17). The flexibility of the PM² methodology may allow it to be adapted to specific types of projects or calls for proposals, adaptation to the size of grants, organizations, civil society, sectors, etc. Specific parts of the methodology can be modified or even omitted to fit the project and/or the implementing organization.

9 Summary and Recommendations

As Czakon (2011, p. 57) has written any research project, scientific article, promotional work and even an application for research funding should, for formal reasons, refer to the existing state. The topic fits into two different subdisciplines (Bełz et al., 2019, pp. 1–23; Cyfert et al., 2014, pp. 39–45): 1) project and process management and 2) Methodology of Management and Quality Studies. The interpretation of the subdiscipline scheme cannot and should not be limited to a one-dimensional space only (Cyfert et al., 2014, p. 40). These analyses build the discipline of management studies, reflect on new perspectives, have practical value, used to look for potential problems in the doctoral thesis (Cyfert et al., 2014, pp. 46–47). We could see that the scale for EIS 2018 and EIS 2022 doubled in terms of ranges for strong and moderate innovators (the range ending and starting, ex. for EIS 2018 at 90% and EIS 2022 at 100%).