مروری انتقادی بر تجارب اولویت گذاری علم و فناوری در ایران؛ آسیب شناسی و الزامات بهبود

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار مدیریت فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران

2 دانشیار مدیریت فناوری، گروه پژوهشی سیاست فناوری و نوآوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش قصد دارد با نگاهی نقادانه به آسیب شناسی تجربه های اولویت گذاری علم و فناوری در ایران بپردازد و بر این اساس به ارائه الزامات برای بهبود فرآیند اولویت گذاری در حوزه علم و فناوری بپردازد. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی است و از نظر رویکرد نیز در زمره پژوهش های کیفی قرار می گیرد. در این پژوهش به منظور گردآوری داده ها از دو روش تشکیل گروه کانونی و مطالعه اسناد و مدارک بهره برداری شده است. تحلیل داده ها نیز با روش تحلیل مضمون انجام شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان می دهد که اولویت گذاری علم و فناوری در ایران دارای ضعف در سه زمینه است: 1) ضعف در محتوای اولویت ها شامل جامعیت به قیمت قربانی کردن مانعیت؛ کم توجهی به زمینه، ظرفیت ها، نیازها و مسائل کشور؛ و کلی گویی، تضاد و همپوشانی در اولویت ها؛ 2) ضعف در فرآیند تدوین اولویت ها شامل تخمین های نادرست و غیردقیق از منابع در دسترس؛ عدم شناخت دقیق از واقعیت های فضای بروکراسی و نهادی کشور؛ و غلبه رویکردهای غیرفراگیر و غیرمشارکتی؛ 3) ضعف در تحقق بخشی به اولویت ها شامل نداشتن برنامه های سیاستی و عملیاتی دقیق برای تحقق اولویت ها؛ تفکر کوتاه مدت و عدم پاسخگویی در قبال اولویت ها؛ و عدم ارزیابی و پایش مستمر تحقق اولویت ها. بعلاوه، الزاماتی در سه زمینه به منظور بهبود اولویت گذاری علم و فناوری پیشنهاد شده است: 1) الزامات بهبود محتوای اولویت ها شامل تعیین اولویت های دقیق، شفاف و مبتنی بر شواهد؛ متمرکز ساختن منابع محدود بر اولویت های کلیدی و راهبردی؛ و تدوین طرح های فناورانه مسئله محور، ماموریت گرا و مبتنی بر زمینه؛ 2) الزامات بهبود فرآیند تعیین اولویت ها شامل کسب شناخت مناسب از واقعیت های حکمرانی کشور؛ اتخاذ رویکردهای آینده نگرانه و مشارکتی؛ نوآوری های سیاستی برای کاهش وابستگی به منابع عمومی؛ بهره گیری از فناوری های اجتماعی برای اجماع سازی و گفتمان سازی؛ و حفظ استقلال و خودمختاری دولت در عین تعامل با ذینفعان؛ 3) الزامات بهبود تحقق بخشی به اولویت ها شامل نگاه و تعهد بلندمدت به اولویت ها؛ پایش و ارزیابی مستمر تحقق اولویت ها؛ نگاه فرابخشی و انسجام بخشی عمودی و افقی؛ میدان دادن به کارآفرینان سیاستی و کنشگران مرزی؛ و ضمانت تامین پایدار منابع مالی و زیرساخت ها. با شناسایی ضعف ها و پیشنهاد الزامات، این پژوهش قصد دارد زمینه را برای تجارب بهتر در زمینه اولویت گذاری علم و فناوری در ایران فراهم سازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Critical Review of Science and Technology Priority Setting Experiences in Iran; Pathology and Requirements for Improvement

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mostafa Safdari Ranjbar 1
  • Naser Bagheri Moghadam 2
1 Associate Professor in Technology Management, Department of Management and Accounting, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran
2 Associate Professor in Technology Management, Technology and Innovation Research Group, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

This study seeks to critically examine the weaknesses associated with prioritizing science and technology in Iran and, based on this assessment, to outline essential requirements for enhancing prioritization in this domain. The research is applied in terms of objective and adopts a qualitative approach. Data collection was carried out using two primary methods: focus group discussions and document analysis. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the data. The findings reveal that the prioritization of science and technology in Iran faces significant shortcomings in three key areas: 1) Weaknesses in the content of priorities: This includes the inclusion of all potential priorities without filtering out less critical topics, a lack of attention to the country’s specific context, capacities, needs, and challenges, as well as issues such as generalizations, contradictions, and overlaps in priority-setting; 2) Weaknesses in the process of formulating priorities: This encompasses inaccurate estimations of available resources, an insufficient understanding of the bureaucratic and institutional realities of the country, and a top-down, non-participatory approach dominated by elites; and 3) Weaknesses in implementing priorities: This involves the absence of clear policy and operational plans for achieving priorities, short-term thinking, a lack of accountability in priority implementation, and inadequate continuous evaluation and monitoring of progress. To address these weaknesses, the study proposes solutions across three dimensions to improve the prioritization of science and technology: 1) Requirements for improving the content of priorities: These include establishing precise, transparent, and evidence-based priorities, focusing limited resources on critical areas, and developing technology-driven plans that are problem-focused, mission-oriented, and context-specific; 2) Requirements for improving the priority-setting process: These involve gaining a realistic understanding of governance dynamics in the country, adopting forward-looking and participatory approaches, innovating policies to reduce reliance on public funding, leveraging social technologies for consensus-building and discourse creation, and balancing government autonomy with stakeholder engagement; and 3) Requirements for enhancing the realization of priorities: These emphasize long-term commitment to priorities, continuous monitoring and evaluation, cross-sectoral coordination with vertical and horizontal coherence, empowering policy entrepreneurs and boundary actors, and ensuring sustainable financing and infrastructure. By identifying weaknesses and proposing requirements, this research aims to pave the way for better experiences in the prioritization of science and technology in Iran.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Science and technology priority setting
  • Science and technology policies
  • Science and technology governance
  • Science and technology documents
  • Thematic analysis

مراجع

Bagheri Moghaddam, N. (2024). Pathology of the environment in energy science and technology sectors' prioritization Case study: Iran's oil and gas industry. The Journal of Popularization of Science,15(1), 152-176. (Persian) DOI: 10.22034/popsci.2024.448292.1321

Bagheri Moghaddam, N., Sahafzadeh, M., Emamian, S. M., & Irankhah, A. (2008 July). Scenario based priority setting of R & D issues: A case study of membrane technology in National Iranian Gas industry [Paper presentation]. In PICMET'08-2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology (pp. 1497-1505), Cape Town, South Africa. DOI: 10.1109/PICMET.2008.4599766
Bakhtiarinejad, R., & Alavi Manesh, M. (2024). On the seventh development plan law of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Features of provisions and key obligations. Tehran: Islamic Parliament Research Center (IPRC). Serial No. 20001. (Persian)
Boyatzis, E. R. (1998). Thematic analysis and qualitative information transforming. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Brattström, E., & Hellström, T. (2019). Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities. Energy Policy, 127, 240-247. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.006
Brattström, E., (2021). Facilitating collaborative priority-setting for research and innovation: A case from the food sector. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(7), 742-754. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2020.1841157
Braun, V., Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA
Denscombe, M. (2021). The good research guide: research methods for small-scale social research projects. Ohio: McGraw-Hill Education.
Falconi, C. A. (1999). Methods for priority setting in agricultural biotechnology. In: J. I. Cohen. (Ed.), Managing agricultural biotechnology: Addressing research program needs and policy implications. Wallingford: CABI.

Farasatkhah, M. (2022). Qualitative research methods in social sciences: With emphasis on Grounded Theory (GTM) (13th ed.). Tehran: Agah Publications. (Persian)

Fatemi, M., Arasti, M. R. (2019). Priority-setting in science, technology and innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 119-133. (Persian)

Fisher, E., & Maricle, G. (2015). Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting. Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 72-85. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scu017
Foray, D. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 492-507. DOI:10.1108/EJIM-09-2014-0096
Foray, D., Morgan, K., & Radosevic, S., (2018). The role of smart specialization in the EU research and innovation policy landscape. Brussels: European Commission.
Fossum, D., Stiles, S., Wagner, C. S., & Popper, S.W., (2000). Setting priorities and coordinating federal R&D across fields of science: A literature review. Executive Summary and Annotated Bibliography. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2008/DRU2286.1.pdf
Gassler, H., Polt, W., & Rammer, C. (2008). Priority setting in technology policy: historical developments and recent trends. Innovation policy in Europe. Measurement and strategy, 203-224.
Georghiou, L., & Harper, J.C., (2011). From priority-setting to articulation of demand: Foresight for research and innovation policy and strategy. Futures, 43(3), 243-251. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2010.11.003

Ghazinoory, S., & Ghazinoori, S. (2012). An introduction to science, technology, and innovation policy (1st ed.). Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University. (Persian)

Ghazinoory, S., Divsalar, A., & Soofi, A.S., (2009). A new definition and framework for the development of a national technology strategy: The case of nanotechnology for Iran. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 835-848. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.004
Godinho, M. M., & Caraça, J. (2009 October 2-3). Setting research priorities: A taxonomy of policy models[Paper presentation]. In 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy (pp. 1-10), Atlanta, USA.
Grebenyuk, A., Shahsnov, S., & Sokolov, A. (2016). S&T priority setting. International practices and the case of Russia. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/Sanaz/Downloads/ssrn-2854276.pdf
Grill, C. (2021). Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(1), 75. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00318-6
Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S.O., (2020). Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 76-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.011
Hellström, T., Jacob, M., & Sjöö, K. (2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: The challenges of implementing RDI priorities. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 599-608. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scw087
Heo, J., Lee, C., & Min, B. (2023). Priority setting for 2050 future images and policy agendas of the Republic of Korea: engaging the national assembly. Foresight, 25(4), 552-577. DOI: 10.1108/FS-03-2022-0031
Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I., (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57-71. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v2i2.149

Jupp, V. (2006). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://text-translator.com/wp-content/filesfa/Dic-of-Social-Research.pdf

Lee, H., Lee, C., Seol, H., & Park, Y. (2008). On the R&D priority setting in technology foresight: A DEA and ANP approach. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 5(02), 201-219. DOI: 10.1142/S0219877008001333
Martin, B., (2001). Technology foresight in a rapidly globalizing economy [Paper presentation]. In International conference on ‘technology foresight for Central and Eastern Europe and the newly independent states, Vienna, Austria.
Mazzucato, M., (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815. DOI: 10.1093/icc/dty034

Nasresfahani, A. R., Bagheri Moghaddam, N., Nazemi, A., & Maleki, A. (2022). Proposing a future-oriented S&T prioritization model for Iran based on expert views. A Quarterly Journal of Socio-cultural Strategy, 11(1), 1-40. (Persian) DOI:  10.22034/scs.2022.143580

OECD. (2009 June 24). Enhancing research performance through evaluation, impact assessment, and priority setting. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://wbc-rti.info/object/document/7862/attach/DSTI-STP-TIP20095-ENG.pdf
Safari, H., Ghazinoory, S., Hassanzadeh, A., & Soltani, A. M. (2024). Facing the challenges of selecting fundamental research in the seventh development plan: A blockchain approach. Rahyaft, 34(1), 83-98. (Persian) DOI:  10.22034/rahyaft.2025.11874.1563

Safdari Ranjbar, M. (2024). Policy report on examining provisions for enhancing the scientific, technological, and research system in the Seventh Development Plan. Tehran: National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP). (Persian)

Safdari Ranjbar, M., Karimiyan, Z., & Faham, E. (2021). Public policy and governance (with special attention to technology and innovation). Tehran: National Research Institute for Science Policy Publishing (NRISP). (Persian)
Salo, A., & Liesiö, J. (2006). A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5(1), 65-88. DOI: 10.1142/S0219622006001873
Sokolova, A., Grebenyuk, A., & Sokolov, A., (2018). Twenty years of S & T priority setting in Russia: Lessons learned. Foresight, 20(5), 449-466. DOI: 10.1108/FS-04-2018-0033

Soltani, A. M. (2023). Evaluability of the national five-year development plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran; The engine for the implementation. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 9(2), 128-143. (Persian) DOI:  10.22059/jppolicy.2023.93612

Stewart, J. (1995). Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Research Policy, 24(1), 115-126. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)00752-F
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., & Howden, M. (2018). A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agricultural Systems, 167, 161-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.009

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار