نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد و مهندسی پیشرفت ،دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران ، ایران
2 استادیار مدیریت تکنولوژی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy has gained increasing global importance as countries recognize the role of knowledge and innovation in economic growth, competitiveness, and sustainable development. Effective STI policies strengthen national innovation systems, enhance scientific productivity, and support technological advancement. Academic research plays a key role in informing these policies by providing analytical insights and empirical evidence for policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. However, the value of such contributions depends largely on the methodological rigor of the research conducted. In Iran, although STI policy studies have expanded in recent years, limited attention has been paid to examining their methodological foundations. Most existing studies have focused on policy content, institutional arrangements, and governance issues. Therefore, analyzing the dominant methodological approaches in Iranian STI policy research is essential for assessing the robustness of existing knowledge and identifying areas for methodological improvement.
This study addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive meta-methodological analysis of STI policy research in Iran. The primary objective is to identify methodological patterns across published studies, examine the prevalence of different research designs, evaluate the diversity of data collection and analysis techniques, and assess the evolution of methodological rigor over time. Through a systematic review of the literature, the study maps the methodological landscape of STI policy research in Iran and provides insights into its strengths, limitations, and future needs.
At a broader level, the increasing academic focus on STI policy reflects global trends. Since the mid-twentieth century, the concept of national innovation systems has emerged as a foundational framework for analyzing how universities, research organizations, industries, and governments interact to produce and diffuse new knowledge. Many countries have designed coordinated STI policies to support research and development, foster innovation ecosystems, and enhance economic value creation. In Iran, interest in STI policy has grown significantly since the adoption of major national policy documents, such as the Twenty-Year Vision Plan and the Comprehensive Scientific Map of the Country. These developments have stimulated substantial academic activity in fields related to science policy, innovation systems, and research governance. Nevertheless, despite the growing body of literature, the methodological characteristics of these studies remain insufficiently examined.
The present study employs a meta-method approach, focusing on the methodological features of existing studies rather than synthesizing their substantive findings. Meta-methodological analysis is widely used in systematic reviews to evaluate research designs, methodological orientations, and analytical procedures across groups of studies. Such analyses reveal dominant paradigms, expose imbalances between qualitative and quantitative approaches, and encourage methodological diversification. In policy research, meta-method studies are particularly valuable because they strengthen the evidence base available to policymakers by promoting more rigorous and systematic research practices.
Methodologically, this study is applied in purpose and adopts a qualitative analytical strategy grounded in systematic literature review procedures. The research process consisted of several structured stages: defining the scope of analysis, identifying relevant publications, screening and selecting studies based on predefined criteria, extracting methodological information, and analyzing emerging patterns. Data were collected from major Iranian academic databases, including SID, Noor Journals, Elmnet, Civilica, and the Humanities Portal. A comprehensive set of keywords related to science, technology, and innovation policy—such as “STI policy,” “innovation policy,” “national innovation system,” and “innovation ecosystem”—was used to identify relevant publications. After removing duplicate records and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final sample of 126 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1390 and 1403 was selected for analysis.
The methodological characteristics of these articles were examined across three main dimensions: research approach, data collection method, and data analysis technique. Research approaches were categorized into qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method designs. Data collection methods included systematic literature reviews, library-based research, interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis. Analytical methods ranged from qualitative techniques such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and meta-synthesis to quantitative approaches including statistical analysis and structural equation modeling.
The findings show that qualitative research overwhelmingly dominates STI policy studies in Iran. Of the 126 examined articles, 79 (approximately 63 percent) adopted qualitative approaches, while only 12 (approximately 9 percent) used quantitative methods. Mixed-method designs appeared in 35 studies (approximately 28 percent). This pattern suggests that qualitative inquiry remains the dominant methodological paradigm in the field, likely due to the exploratory and interpretive nature of STI policy issues. Many studies examine governance structures, institutional interactions, and policy processes, areas that traditionally rely on qualitative methodologies.
Similar patterns appear in data collection methods. Systematic literature reviews were used in 42 studies, and library-based methods in 40 studies, indicating the strong presence of conceptual and document-based analyses. Interviews and questionnaires were each used in 25 studies, and their use has gradually increased, reflecting growing attention to empirical data and stakeholder engagement in STI policy research.
Data analysis techniques also demonstrate a predominantly qualitative orientation. Content analysis was used in 27 studies, thematic analysis in 18, and meta-synthesis in 12. Quantitative analytical techniques were less common; for example, structural equation modeling appeared in only a limited number of studies. Nevertheless, the temporal distribution of methods indicates emerging methodological diversification, with more recent studies increasingly experimenting with mixed-method designs and advanced quantitative tools.
Several factors contribute to the dominance of qualitative approaches. One major factor is the limited availability of reliable and comprehensive datasets related to innovation activities, research performance, and technology development. In addition, STI policy research is inherently interdisciplinary and often requires interpretive frameworks to analyze policy dynamics and institutional complexity. Academic traditions and institutional structures may also reinforce the preference for qualitative research in Iran.
Although qualitative methods provide rich analytical insights, excessive reliance on them may limit the generalizability and empirical precision of research findings. Expanding the use of quantitative approaches, integrating mixed-method designs, and utilizing empirical datasets—such as patent statistics, bibliometric indicators, and innovation performance measures—could significantly strengthen the methodological robustness of the field. Greater collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and industry actors could also facilitate access to more diverse and policy-relevant data sources. Furthermore, participatory methods, expert panels, and Delphi techniques may strengthen the empirical foundations of STI policy research.
Overall, this study systematically maps the methodological landscape of STI policy research in Iran. By identifying dominant research approaches, commonly used data collection tools, and prevailing analytical techniques, it highlights both the progress and limitations of current research practices. The findings underscore the importance of increasing methodological diversity, improving the use of empirical data, and promoting more rigorous research designs. Strengthening methodological foundations can improve the quality of evidence informing national STI policies and support more effective decision-making within Iran’s innovation system.
کلیدواژهها [English]
Ahlqvist, T., Valovirta, V., & Loikkanen, T. (2012). Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design. Science and Public Policy, 39(2), 178-190. DOI:10.1093/scipol/scs016
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59), 1-11. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Bench, S., & Day, T. (2010). The user experience of critical care discharge: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(4), 487-499. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.11.013
Craig, C., & Dillon, S. (2023). “Storylistening” in the science policy ecosystem. Science, 379(6628), 134-136. DOI:10.1126/science.abo1355
Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2-23. DOI:10.1093/oxrep/grx001
Edwards, M., Davies, M., & Edwards, A. (2009). What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling, 75(1), 37-52. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.025
Gama, R., Barros, C., & Fernandes, R. (2018). Science policy, R&D and knowledge in portugal: An application of social network analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(2), 329-358. DOI:10.1007/s13132-017-0447-3
Geurts, J. L., & Joldersma, C. (2001). Methodology for participatory policy analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 300-310. DOI:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00073-4
Ghanavati, F., & Mashayekh, J. (2022). Methodological foundations in comparative studies of science, technology and innovation policy in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 15(2), 93-108. (Persian) DOI:10.22034/jstp.2022.13944
Ghosh, B., Malaver, D. C. V., Chakraborty, K., Mguni, P., & Yuana, S. L. (2025). Transformative innovation policy: An analytical review of key methods and challenges. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 50(1), 1-52. DOI:10.1146/annurev-environ-111523-102251
Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2016). What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14, 1-12. DOI:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
Kamali, Y. (2017). The methodology of meta synthesis and implications for public policy. Politics Quarterly, 47(3), 721-736. (Persian) DOI:10.22059/jpq.2017.62861
kamali, Y. (2018). Methodology of thematic analysis and its application in public policy studies. Public Policy, 4(2), 189-208. (Persian) DOI:10.22059/ppolicy.2018.67875
Kanger, L., Bone, F., Rotolo, D., Steinmueller, W. E., & Schot, J. (2022). Deep transitions: A mixed methods study of the historical evolution of mass production. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, 121491. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121491
Kosari, S., & Alizadeh, P. (2021). A comparative study of the governance of science, technology and innovation in Iran and selected countries. Rahyaft, 31(2), 1-22. (Persian) DOI:10.22034/rahyaft.2021.10737.1223
Lundvall, B.-Å., Joseph, K., Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (2011). Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Moradipour, H., Hajiani, E., & Khalifeh Soltani, H. (2017). Approach to the results of science and technology policy in iran, based on the analysis of upstream documents. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 11(37), 151-178. (Persian) DOI:10.22034/jiera.2017.57770
Moyer, R., Kordsmeier, B., & Song, G. (2017). A review of contemporary science and technology policy research: Recent trends and future directions. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-34. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3033366
Padilla-Pérez, R., & Gaudin, Y. (2014). Science, technology and innovation policies in small and developing economies: The case of Central America. Research Policy, 43(4), 749-759. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.011
Palm, A. (2022). Innovation systems for technology diffusion: An analytical framework and two case studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121821. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121821
Paterson, B. L. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis (Vol. 3). Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.
Paterson, B. L. (2007). Coming out as ill: Understanding self‐disclosure in chronic illness from a meta‐synthesis of qualitative research. Reviewing Research Evidence For Nursing Practice: Systematic Reviews, 73-83. DOI:10.1002/9780470692127.ch7
Peivasteh, S. (2019). STI policy making: Social aspects and cocequences. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 43-57. (Persian)
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (Vol. 7th). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Seyedolhosseinib, N. A. M. S. M., & Tosid, M. O. M. R. S. (2021). A Meta-Method Overview of Restorative Urban Environment Approach. 14(35), 223-237. (Persian) DOI:10.22034/AAUD.2020.218564.2111
Shirazi, H., & Alba, K. (2024). Systematic review and scientometric analysis of scientific researches of science, technology and innovation policies in the field of energy. Rahyaft, 34(2), 39-64. (Persian) DOI:10.22034/rahyaft.2024.11661.1505
Stanton, C. R. (2025). “Walking the talk”: A critical meta-methodology of participatory research across AERA Journals. Review of Educational Research, 00346543251313794. DOI:10.3102/00346543251313794
Surana, K., Singh, A., & Sagar, A. D. (2020). Strengthening science, technology, and innovation-based incubators to help achieve Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons from India. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120057. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120057
Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 5(1), 53-63. DOI:10.30564/jmser.v5i1.4538
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204-211. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x
Wathiq, & Ali, Q. (2011). The status of methodology in governmental policy- making. Research in Islamic Sciences, 3(2), 39-70. (Persian)
Wei, X., Liu, R., & Chen, W. (2023). Meta theories of technological innovation based on the analysis of classic texts. Heliyon, 9(6), e16779. DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16779
Weiss, C. H. (2021). The many meanings of research utilization. In M. A. Bulmer (Ed.), Social science and social policy (pp. 31-40). Abingdon: Routledge.
Wies, R. (1994 October 10-12). Policy definition and classification: aspects, criteria and examples [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the IFIP/IEEE international workshop on distributed systems: operation and management, Toulouse, France.
Yanovitzky, I., & Weber, M. (2020). Analysing use of evidence in public policymaking processes: A Theory-Grounded content analysis methodology. Evidence & Policy, 16(1), 65-82. DOI:10.1332/174426418X15378680726175
Yun, T. (2023). Review of science and technology innovation policies in major innovative-oriented countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Biosafety and Health, 5(01), 8-13. DOI:10.1016/j.bsheal.2022.12.001
)