Challenges, issues and structural require elements for the implementation of the national system for evaluating the effectiveness of Science, Technology and innovation

Document Type : Research paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

2 Research Assistant, Department of Scientometrics, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Effectiveness-based evaluations have always been of interest to countries and organizations due to their focus on identifying and explaining the relationship between performances and goals and missions. In other words, in this type of evaluation, the aim is to explain to what extent the activities carried out in a country or an organization are in line with their goals and missions and have been able to satisfy the embedded needs of these goals and missions. This type of study can show how well these activities conform to set goals and missions and, in other words, answers the important question of whether such activities should be done or not? Despite the importance of this category, evaluations of science, technology, and innovation based on explaining effectiveness have not yet been on the agenda of centers active in measuring and evaluating science, technology, and innovation in the country and to implement such an approach in evaluation, it is necessary to develop a coherent and systematic structure. The purpose of this study was to provide a conceptual model for the structure of this type of evaluation in the country while enumerating the dimensions of evaluations based on effectiveness in science, technology, and innovation.
This study tries to provide a conceptual model for the structure of the type of evaluation in the country. In this way, related printed and electronic sources and texts as well as interviews were used as data collection tools. The human population of this study consists of 15 experts in the fields of science, technology, and innovation who were selected by purposive sampling.
The results show that evaluations aimed at identifying the effectiveness of organizational and national activities and practices are of particular importance in scientometrics; This is because these types of evaluations answer an important question that arises before the performance evaluation phase begins, and that is about the correctness or incorrectness of the activities that should have been on the agenda. To achieve this kind of systematic evaluation, the country's science, technology, and innovation
evaluation system needs new conceptual and structural requirements that must be explained and implemented with the support of stakeholders and organizations. The results obtained in this paper show that to achieve such goals, we can act on the model of the National Consortium of Measurement and Evaluation of Science, Technology, and Innovation.

Keywords

References

[1]    ‏‫‎Seyf AA. Educational measurement and evaluation methods (In Persian). Tehran: Doran; 1996.
[2]    Lei D, Slocum Jr JW. Global strategic alliances: Payoffs and pitfalls. Organizational Dynamics. 1991 Dec 1; 19 (3): 44-62.
[3]    Helliker K. Pressure at pier 1: beating sales numbers of year earlier is a storewide obsession. Wall Street Journal. December. B1, B2. 1995.
[4]    Hal R. H. Organization: Structure, process and outcomes (In Persian). Translated by Ali Parsaiyan, Mohammad Arabi. Tehran: Cultural Research Office; 1997.
[5]    Noroozi Chakoli, A. Identifying and defining the elements involved in the system of measuring science and technology with a national approach (looking at the experience of Iran) (In Persian). Project collaborators: Mohammad Hassanzadeh, Hamzeh Ali Noor Mohammadi. Tehran: National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP); 2008.
[6]    Noroozi Chakoli, A. Recognizing the relationship between science, technology and innovation indicators with their effectiveness and designing a complete framework for measuring science, technology and innovation in Iran. (In Persian). Project collaborators: Mohammad Hassanzadeh, Hamzeh Ali Noor Mohammadi. Tehran: National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP); 2009.
[7]    Noroozi Chakoli, A. A comparative study of research planning and policy-making structure in Iran, Turkey, Germany and the United States (In Persian). Tehran: Shahed University; 2018.
[8]    Entezari, Y. Innovative Economy: A New Model for Analyzing and Policy-Making the Development of Science, Technology and Innovation (In Persian). Research and Planning in Higher Education, 35 and 36, 219-256. 2005.
[9]    Namdarian, L. Kalantari, N. Allidoosti, S. ndicators and organizations active in this field (In Persian). Edited by Homa Arshadi. Tehran:Iran Institute of Information Science and Technology, Chapar. 2017.
[10]    Ghazi nori, S. Farazkish, M. A modal for STI national evaluation based efficiency, effectiveness and Utility index (In Persian). Journal Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 2018; 27 (8): 205-229.
[11]    Adams, J. Research assessment in the UK. Science. 296. p. 805.Center For program Evaluation. Center for Program Evaluation Glossary. 2002. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/ evaluation/glossary/glossary_e.htm
[12]    Commission, T. E. Preformance-based research fund- a guideline for 2003. [Online]. Available at: www.tec.govt.nz/upload/downloads/pbrffinal-july03.pdf
[13]    DEST. Institutional Grants Scheme. [Online]. 2007. Available at:
www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/programmes_funding/general_funding/operating_grants/institutional_grants_scheme.htm
[14]    The Science and technology policy council, Iceland. 2004. Science and technology policy. [Online]. Available at: http://www.rannis.is.
[15]    Uzun, A. Science and technology policy in Turkey. National strategies for innovation and change during the 1983 – 2003 periods and beyond. [S.L.: S.N.]; 2006.
[16]    Erichsen R. Scientific Research and Science Policy in Turkey. Cahiers d’études sur la Méditerranée orientale et le monde turco-iranien. 2007 Jan 1 (25). [Online]. Available at: http://cemoti.revoues.com/document61.html.
[17]    Hîncu, D. F., L.C.; and Sova, R. The composite indicators used in assessing innovation at national level. Economia. Seria Management, 2010; 13 (2), 521-531.
[18]    Das AK, Arora P, Bhattacharya S. Webliography of STI indicator databases and related publications. Journal of Scientometric Research, 2012; 1 (1): 86-93.
[19]    Van Bochove, C. A. Economic Statistics and Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 2013; 96, p. 799-818.
[20]    De Pereny ML. From industrialization to innovation: building the Peruvian National System of Science, Technology and Innovation, 1968–2015. InInnovation in Developing and Transition Countries 2017 Sep 29. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[21]    Bouacida RY. The national innovation system and the difficulty of integrating the higher education system for science and technology in Algeria. Revue d'économie industrielle. 2019; 168(4e).
[22]    Kang D, Jang W, Kim Y, Jeon J. Comparing national innovation system among the USA, Japan, and Finland to improve Korean deliberation organization for national science and technology policy. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2019 Dec; 5 (4): 82.
[23]    Center For program Evaluation. Center for Program Evaluation Glossary. 2007.       
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary/glossary_e.htm
[24]    Sink, D.S.. Productivity management: planning, measurement and evaluation,control and improvement. New York: John Wiely & Sons,1985.
[25]    NLA. Glossary. 2020. www.nla.gov.au/policy/annrep02/pages/glossary.html
[26]    USQ. Glossary Terms. 2020. www.usq.edu.au/planstats/Docs/GlossaryTerms.doc.
[27]    VSP Inc. 2020. Meaning of effectiveness. www.vspinc.biz/ meaningeffectiveness.htm.
[28]    Rantanen, H. The effects of productivity on profitability: a case study at firm level using an activity based costing approach. Doctoral dissertation, Lappeeranta, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology. 1995.
[29]    Horngren, C.T. Faster G. Cost accounting - a managerial emphasis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1987.
[30]    Estafel Bim, D. Antoni Shingfild G. Fundamentals of Program Evaluation, Translator and Collector Mohammad Hassan Mohaghegh Moin, Tehran: Moin Empowerment Evaluation Institute. 2009.
[31]    Noroozi Chakoli, A. NourMohammadi, H. Hasanzadeh, M. Measuring Science, Technology, and Innovation: International Concepts and Indicators. Tehran: National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP); 2007.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics