ارائه چارچوب شاخص‌های پایش و ارزیابی مرجعیت علمی در حوزه علوم انسانی (با تاکید برمرجعیت آموزشی، انتشارات علمی و ترویجی)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت علمی مدیریت تکنولوژی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 پژوهشگر سیاست‌گذاری علم و فنّاوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

10.22034/rahyaft.2023.11388.1407

چکیده

مرجعیت علمی از واژگانی است که به تواتر در اسناد بالادستی و سیاستگذاری ‎کلان علم، فناوری و نوآوری کشور استفاده می‎شود اما معمولاً شاخص‎های ارزیابی مناسبی از سنجش آن به طور شفاف ارائه نشده است. تصویب آیین‎نامه اجرایی نظام پایش و ارزیابی علم، فناوری و نوآوری کشور در شورای عالی علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری در سال 1396 نقطه عطفی در نظام علم، فناوری و نوآوری کشور می‌باشد. با این حال به دلیل ماهیت نرم و پیچیدگی در پایش و ارزیابی علوم انسانی، پایش و ارزیابی علم، فناوری و نوآوری در این حوزه با دشواری‌هایی همراه بوده است. در این راستا، هدف این مقاله ارائه چارچوب شاخص‎های ارزیابی مرجعیت علوم انسانی در معیارهای آموزش عمومی و حرفه‎ای، آموزش عالی، انتشارات علمی و همچنین ترویج علم، فناوری و نوآوری بر اساس معیارهای آیین‌نامه اجرایی نظام پایش و ارزیابی علم، فناوری و نوآوری کشور می‌باشد. روش پژوهش در مقاله حاضر از حیث نوع کاربردی بوده، راهبرد اساسی آن مطالعه کیفی و از منظر هدف نیز توصیفی است. این مقاله با استفاده از رویکرد کیفی به بررسی تجارب بین‎المللی شاخص‎های پایش و ارزیابی علوم انسانی و تحلیل متون اسناد بالادستی نظیر نقشه جامع علمی کشور، سند تحول بنیادین آموزش و پرورش، سند دانشگاه اسلامی و همچنین سیاست‌های کلی علم و فناوری برای استخراج راهبردها و اقدامات مرتبط با مرجعیت علوم انسانی می‌پردازد. با برگزاری پنل خبرگان و مصاحبه‌های نیمه ساختار یافته در بازه زمانی 1400 و 1401، چارچوبی متوازنی از معیارها، زیرمعیارها و شاخص‎ها به‎منظور پایش و ارزیابی مرجعیت آموزشی، علمی و ترویجی علوم انسانی ارائه شده است. همچنین پیشنهادهایی برای بهره‎برداری مناسب از چارچوب ارائه‎شده بر پایه همکاری، تقسیم کار و وحدت رویه سازمان‎ها و نهادهای متولی در جمع‎آوری و تحلیل داده ها ارائه می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Presenting a framework of indicators for monitoring and evaluating scientific authority in humanities (With an emphasis on educational, scientific publication, and promotion authority)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Kiarash Fartash 1
  • Amirhadi Azizi 2
1 Faculty memberof Management of Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran,
2 Researcher Science and Technology Policy, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Scientific authority is one of the keywords that are frequently used in upstream documents and macro policies of science, technology and innovation of the country, but usually appropriate evaluation indicators of its measurement are not transparently presented. Approval of the executive regulation of Iran's science, technology and innovation monitoring system in the Supreme Council of Science, Research and Technology (CSRT) in 2017 is a turning point in Iran's science, technology and innovation system. However, due to the soft nature and complexity of the fundamentals of the Humanities, monitoring and evaluation of science, technology and innovation in this field has been accompanied by difficulties. Therefore, setting a framework for the indicators of scientific authority evaluation in the Humanities is more important than ever before.
From the perspective of the purpose, this paper seeks to provide an appropriate framework for monitoring and evaluation indicators of educational, scientific and developmental authority of the Humanities using upstream documents and related international experiences.
In reviewing the background of the research, this section includes two subdivisions including the International Monitoring and Evaluation of Science, Technology and Innovation Experiences in the Field of Humanities (in which the experience of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, International Social Science Council, European Commission, British Academy and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences have been studied in the field of Humanities monitoring), as well as analysis of upstream documents related to the research (General Policies of Science and Technology Announcement of the Supreme Leader, Science and Technology Roadmap, Document of the fundamental transformation of education and also Document of the Islamic University) that the results extracted in accordance with the executive regulations of the system of monitoring and evaluation of science, Iran's technology and innovation has been examined.
The research method in this paper is applied in terms of type, its basic strategy is qualitative and descriptive. For this purpose, both primary data (policy documents, reports, and international dashboards) extracted from study sources and secondary data (holding 8 expert panel meetings and structured interviews with 5 selected members of panels) have been exploited.
In order to examine the findings, indicators derived from the analysis of relevant international experiences and policy documents (background review) following the executive regulations of Iran's science, technology and innovation monitoring system which includes eleven criteria have been investigated.
According to the specific topic of this article, which is the explanation of the indicators of monitoring and evaluation of educational, scientific and extension authority of the Humanities, four categories of the mentioned regulations including a. general and professional education, b. higher education, c. scientific publications and d. promoting science, technology and innovation are considered.
In the final section, the final framework of the indicators of educational, scientific and extension authority in the field of Humanities is summarized in the following four categories:

General and professional education of Humanities (including quantity and quality of general and professional Humanities education);
Higher education in the Humanities (including the quantity and quality of higher education in Humanities);
Scientific publications of Humanities (including publication of books, quantity and quality of research, and quantity and quality of scientific articles in the field of Humanities);
Promoting science, technology and innovation in the field of Humanities (including publications (magazines, and public books), events (specialized exhibitions, conferences, etc.), cyberspace (including databases, social networks, etc.) in the field of Humanities and promotion centers);

The novelty of this paper's compared to the previous studies is considering Iran's peculiarities in monitoring and evaluating humanities toward attaining scientific authority. We also note that achieving the desired results in evaluation and monitoring of the status of scientific, educational and extension authority of the Humanities depend on cooperation and unity of procedural practices of the trustee organizations and institutions. It is expected that responsible entities, while executing their responsibilities, collaborate in collecting and analyzing relevant data to minort and assess scientific authority of humanities.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Scientific authority
  • Humanities
  • Scientific authority of humanities
  • Monitoring and evaluation indicators and criteria
  • National humanities monitoring system
Amador, S. R., Pérez, M. D., Pérez, M. J. L. H., & Font, R. J. R. (2018). Correction to: Indicator system for managing science, technology and innovation in universities. Scientometrics115(3), 1589-89. DOI:10.1007/s11192-018-2721-y
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2002 July). Making the humanities count: The importance of data. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from  https://www.amacad.org/publication/making-humanities-count-importance-data
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2005). Tracking changes in the humanities. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from  http://www.amacad.org/pdfs/tracking_changes_humanities.pdf
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2013). Humanities Report Card. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from https://www.amacad.org/publication/humanities-report-card-2013
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2013). The humanities and social sciences: The heart of the matter. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/heart-matter-humanities-and-social-sciences-vibrant-competitive-and-secure-nation
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2014). The state of the humanities 2014: funding. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from https://www.amacad.org/publication/state-humanities-funding-2014
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2015). The State of the Humanities 2015: Higher education. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from https://www.amacad.org/publication/state-humanities-higher-education-2015
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2018). The State of the Humanities 2018: Graduates in the workforce & beyond. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from https://www.amacad.org/publication/state-humanities-2018-graduates-workforce-beyond
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2019). Project humanities indicators: Arts and Humanities. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from  https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2021 November 7). The State of the Humanities 2021: workforce & beyond, a report from the humanities indicators project. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from   https://www.amacad.org/publication/humanities-workforce-beyond
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2022). From graduate education to the workforce. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from https://www.amacad.org/publication/humanities-graduate-education-workforce
European Commission. (2011). Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, Research and Innovation. Retrieved November, 10, 2023, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/other_pubs/database-from-ssh-policymaking-projects_en.pdf
European Commission (2014). Horizon 2020, Research & Innovation, Socio-economic Sciences & Humanities. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en
Gault, F., Arundel, A., & Kraemer-Mbula, E. (2023). Handbook of innovation indicators and measurement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Godin, B. (2003). The most cherished indicator: Gross Domestic Expenditures on R&D (GERD). Project on the history of sociology of S&T statistics working paper. Quebec: Canadian Science and Innovation Indicators Consortium (CSIIC). DOI: 10.4324/9780203481523-16
Gómez-Valenzuela, V. (2023). Stated Preference Methods and STI policy studies: A foreground approach. Research Evaluation, 32(2), 171-87. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvad022
Gokhberg, L. (2013). Indicators for science, technology and innovation on the crossroad to foresight. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future  (pp. 257-88). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31827-6_15
Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: How robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33(9), 1373-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.007
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational technology research and development, 30, 233-52. DOI:10.1007/BF02765185
Hafezi, R., MirzaRasouli, F. & Aminlou, M. (2022). An essay on scientific authority: From the perspective of a selected pre-eminent Iranian scientist. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 15(3), 29-40. (Persian), DOI: 10.22034/jstp.2022.13956
International Social Science Council. (2010). World Social Science report. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from http://www.worldsocialscience.org/activities/world-social-science-report-2010
International Social Science Council. (2013). World Social Science report. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from http://www.worldsocialscience.org/activities/world-social-science-report-2013 
International Social Science Council (2016). World Social Science report. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from http://www.worldsocialscience.org/activities/world-social-science-report-2016
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 84(1), 138-46. DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7120
Khayyatian, M. S., Fartash, K., & Pourasgari, P. (2020). Development of a framework for monitoring and evaluation of Iran’s National System of Science, Technology and Innovation. Culture strategy13(49), 119-54. (Persian), DOI: 10.22034/jsfc.2020.109868
Khoshnam, M. (2021). Qualitative Content Analysis of upstream documents of Science and Technology Centers. Rahyaft, 31(83), 57-62. (Persian) DOI: 10.22034/rahyaft.2022.11055.1306
Moradi, S., Janavi, E., & pakzad, M. (2020). Monitoring and evaluation of the situation of Iran in higher education based on national policy documents. Rahyaft30(78), 1-19. (Persian) DOI: 10.22034/rahyaft.2020.13808
Muzari, T., Shava, G. N., & Shonhiwa, S. (2022). Qualitative research paradigm, a key research design for educational researchers, processes and procedures: A theoretical overview. Indiana Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences3(1), 14-20.
Office for Preservation and Publication of Ayatollah Khamenei's Works. (2014). Communicating the general policies of science and technology. Retrieved November, 08, 2023, from https://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=27599 (Persian)
Pedersen, D.B., Grønvad, J.F., & Hvidtfeldt, R. (2020). Methods for mapping the impact of Social Sciences and Humanities: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 29, 4-21. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvz033
Planning and Budget Organization. (2023). Seventh development plan bill (2023-2027). Tehran: Islamic Republic of Iran Presidency. (Persian)
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Sirilli, G. (2005 November 24 - 25). Developing science and technology indicators at the OECD: the NESTI network [Paper presentation]. In Knowledge networks as a new form of collaborative creation: Their construction, dynamics and management. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (2010). Science and Technology (S&T) roadmap. Tehran: Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (Persian)
Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (2011). Document of the fundamental transformation of education. Tehran: Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (Persian)
Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (2013). Document of the Islamic University. Tehran: Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (Persian)
Supreme Council for Science, Research and Technology. (2017). Executive regulation of the Iran's science, technology and innovation monitoring and evaluation system. Tehran: The Supreme Council for Science, Research and Technology.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2017). Overview of science, technology and innovation policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Geneva, Switzerland.
UNECE. (2005). Development of indicators to measure implementation of the UNECE strategy for ESD. Netherlands: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Vaseghi, B. M., Javanali, A. M., & Khandan, A. (2021). Identifying and Prioritizing the Obstacles of Achieving Scientific Marjaiyat in Humanities & Social Science (Case Study of Imam Sadiq University). Strategic Management Thought, 15(1), 29-72. (Persian) DOI: 10.30497/SMT.2021.239314.3117
Yousefi, A., osareh, F., & Mirjalili, A. (2021). The need to identify and develop thematic indicators of science, technology and innovation: A case study: The field of vaccines and biological products. Rahyaft30(80), 33-49, (Persian) DOI: 10.22034/rahyaft.2021.10484.1155.