طراحی فرآیند ارزیابی پیشینی سازگاری نهادی سیاست های علم و فناوری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه اصفهان

2 دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

3 سازمان پژوهش های علمی و صنعتی ایران

4 تربیت مدرس

چکیده

توجه به ارزیابی سیاست‌ها در چرخه سیاست‌گذاری ضروری است، ولی ارزیابی پیشینی، در ادبیات ارزیابی سیاست، کمتر مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. در این مقاله، فرآیندی پنج مرحله‌ای برای ارزیابی پیشینی سیاست‌های علم‌وفناوری در چرخه سیاست با استفاده از روش نظریه‌پردازی داده‌بنیاد ارائه می‌شود. بدین منظور با بررسی ادبیات موضوع، بیش از ده کلید واژه، جستجو شد و در نهایت پس از انتخاب 50 متن منتخب، کدگذاری‌های باز و محوری صورت گرفت و با استفاده از مصاحبه‌های هدفمند با خبرگان، فرآیند ارزیابی پیشینی سازگاری نهادی استخراج و تایید شد. در این فرآیند پیشنهادی، اولین مرحله، دسته‌بندی گزینه‌های سیاستی است. در مرحله دوم جنبه‌های مهم نهادی در بافت چرخه سیاست در سه گام فرموله‌بندی، اجرا و ارزیابی شناسایی می‌گردند. مرحله سوم با تعیین شاخص‌هایی، این جنبه‌های مهم نهادی اندازه‌گیری می‌شوند. مرحله چهارم تحلیل‌هایی را از اثرات آتی سیاست ارائه می‌دهد و در مرحله پنجم، از این تحلیل‌ها برای تصحیح ابزارهای سیاستی، متناسب با نهادهای هدف استفاده می‌شود. این فرآیند پیشنهادی، ابزاری است برای سیاست‌گذاران که با پیروی از مراحل پیشنهادی آن، توانایی ارزیابی پیشینی سیاست‌ها را داشته باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing an Institutional Compatibility Ex-Ante Assessment Procedure for Science and Technology Policies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Naser Noroozi 1
  • Shaban Elahi 2
  • Hojatolah Hajihoseini 3
  • Alireza Hasanzadeh 4
1 University of Isfahan
2 Tarbiat Modares university
3 Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology
4 Tarbiat Modares university
چکیده [English]

It is essential to consider policy assessment in policy cycle. However, ex-ante evaluation has been rarely reviewed in the policy evaluation literature. In this paper, a five-phase process of ex-ante evaluation of science and technology policies in policy cycle using grounded theory is offered. For this purpose, through the literature review, ten keywords are searched for, and finally 50 selected texts are selected for open and axial coding. After that, by structured interviews with experts, the process of ex-ante evaluation of institutional compatibility is extracted. The first step of the process is classifying the policy options. In the second step, Crucial Institutional Aspects (CIA) are identified in the policy cycle context. By determining some indicators, the third step measures these CIAs. The forth step analyzes the policy impacts, and in the fifth, these analyses are used to modify policy instruments with regards to the target institutions. This suggested process is a new subject and provides a tool for policy makers to conduct ex-ante evaluation of policies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • science and technology policies
  • Policy-making
  • ex-ante evaluation
  • institution
  • institutional compatibility

 Amblard, L. & Mann, C., 2011. Ex-ante institutional compatibility assessment of policy options: methodological insights from a case study on the Nitrate Directive in Auvergne, France. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, pp. 661-684.

Aoki, M. & Rothwell, G., 2013. A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy, Volume 53, pp. 240-247.

Bakshi, A., Talaei-Khoei, A. & Ray, P., 2013. Adaptive policy framework:Asystematic review. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 36(4), pp. 1261-1271.

Bickers, K. N. & Williams, J. T., 2001. Public Policy analysis: a political economy approach. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Bikar, V., Capron, H. & Cincera, M., 2004. An Integrated Scheme for the Evaluation on Institutional set-Ups: The case of the Belgian Regional Innovation system. Working Paper- Universite Libre De Bruxelles.

Birks, M. & Miles, J., 2015. Grounded Theory: A practical Guide. London: Sage.

Bocher, M., 2012. A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. Forest Policy and Econimics, pp. 14-22.

Boekholt, P., Cozzens, S. & Johnston, R., 2001. An international review of methods to measure relative effectiveness of technology policy instruments, Amsterdam- Netherlands: Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Bridgman, P. & Davis, G., 2000. Australian Policy Handbook. 2nd ed. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Cárcamo, P., Garay-Flühmann, R. & Gaymer, C., 2013. Opportunities and constraints of the institutional framework for the implementation of ecosystem-based management: the case of the Chilean coast. Ocean & coastal management, Volume 84, pp. 193-203.

Carter, S. K. et al., 2015. An evaluation of environmental, institutional and socio-economic factors explaining successful conservation plan implementation in thenorth-central United States. Biological Conservation, Volume 192, pp. 135-144.

Chaffin, B., Garmestani, A., Gosnell, H. & Craig, R., 2016. Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA.. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 57, pp. 112-121.

Clark, J. & Guy, K., 1997. Innovation and Competitiveness, London: Technopolis & Brighton.

Creswell, J. W. & Hanson, W., 2007. Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), pp. 236-264.

Edquist, C., 2004. Reflections on the systems of innovation approach. Science and Public Policy, 31(6), pp. 485-489.

Edquist, C. & Johnson, B., 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. In: C. Edquist, ed. Institutions and organization in systems of innovation. London: Pinter, pp. 41-63.

Elliot, N. & Lazenbatt, A., 2005. How to recognise a quality grounded Theory research Study. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, p. Volume 22 Number 3.

EU, 2001. Evaluation- General Issues, Poland- Warsaw: European Union.

Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J. & Tubke, A., 2002. Evaluation Toolbox: Assessing the Socio Economic Impact of RTD-Policies,  European Commission.

Filippi, F., Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A. & Delle Site, P., 2010. Ex-ante Assessment of urban freight trasport policies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, pp. 6332-6342.

Fitzpatrick, J., 2016. Environmental sustainability assessment of using forest wood for heat. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 57, pp. 1287-1295.

Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. & Maat, J., 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), pp. 485-498.

Henwood, K. & Pidgeon, N., 2003. Grounded Theory in psychological Research. In: Qualitative Research In psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 131-155.

Hong, J., Ren, L., Hong, J. & Xu, C., 2016. Environmental impact assessment of corn straw utilization in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(2), pp. 1700-1708.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. & Perl, A., 2009. (). Studying Public policy: Policy Cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Izsak, K. & Edler, J., 2011. Trends and Challenges in Demand-side Innovation Policies in Europe,  technopolis.

Jann, W. & Wegrich, K., 2007. Theories of the Policy cycle. In: Handbook of public policy analysis- Theory, Politics and Methods. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, pp. 43-63.

Korten, D. C., 1980. Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review, pp. 480-511.

Lee, J., 2001. A Grounded Theory: Integration and Internalization in ERP, Adoption and Use, In Proquest UMI Database: University Of Nebreska.

Legro, J., 1997. Which norms matter? Revisiting the “failure” of internationalism. International Organization, 51(1), pp. 31-63.

Lings, B. & Lundell, B., 2005. On the Adaption of Grounded Theory procedures: Insights from the evolution of the 2G method. Information Technology & People, pp. 196-211.

lundberg, f. c., 2006. Evaluation, Definition, Methods and Models,  Swedish Institute for Groth Policy Studies.

Marsden, G. & Groer, S., 2016. Do institutional structures matter? A comparative analysis of urban carbon management policies in the UK and Germany. Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 51, pp. 170-179.

Morgan, J. & Olsen, W., 2011. Conceptual issues in institutional economics: clarifying the fluidity of rules. Journal of Institutional Economics, pp. 425-454.

Mowery, D. C., 1995. The Practice of Technology Policy. In: Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 513-557.

Niosi, J., 2002. National Systems of Innovation are X-Efficient. Research Policy, 31(2), pp. 291-302.

Ostrom, E., 1986. A Method of Institutional Analysis. In: Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. The University of Michigan: W. de Gruyter, pp. 459-475.

Ostrom, E., 1998a. The Institutional Analysis and Development Approach. In: Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management. University of Michigan: Edward Elgar.

Ostrom, E., 1998b. Institutional Analysis, Design Principles, and Threats to Sustainable Community Governance and Management of Commons. In: Law and the Governance of Renewable Resources: Studies from Northern Europe and Africa. Oakland: ICS Press.

Ostrom, E., 2005a. Doing Institutional Analysis- Digging Deeper Than Markets and Hierarchies. In: Handbook of new Institutional Economics. Netherland: Springer, pp. 819-848.

Ostrom, E., 2005b. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Prinston- New jersey: Princeton University Press.

Parto, s., Ciarli, T. & Arora, S., 2005. Economic Groth, Innovation systems, and Institutional change: A Trilogy in five Parts, Maastricht, Netherlands: Mssdtricht Economic Research, Institute on Innovation and Technology.

Pfahl, S., 2005. Institutional Sustainability. Int. J. Sustainable Development, pp. Vol. 8, Nos. 1/2, 80-97.

Raheem, N., 2014 . Using the institutional analysis and development (IAD)framework to analyze the acequias of El Rیo de las Gallinas,New Mexico. The Social Science Journal, 51(3), pp. 447-454.

Rahman, H. T., Hickey, G. M. & Kumar Sarker, S., 2012. A framework for evaluating collective action and informal institutional dynamics under a resource management policy of decentralization. Ecological Economics, Volume 83, pp. 32-41.

Ralph, N., Birks, M. & Chapman, Y., 2014. Contextual Positioning: Using Documents as Extant Data in Grounded Theory Research. Sage Open.

Rogers, B. C., Brown, R. R., de Haan, F. J. & Deletic, A., 2015. Trajectories in Water Infrastructure Systems of Melbourne, Australia.. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Volume 15, pp. 42-64.

Roper, S., Dundas, N. H. & Love, J. H., 2004. An ex-ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D Projects. Research Policy, pp. 87-09.

Salbu, B., 2016. (). Environmental impact and risk assessments and key factors contributing to the overall uncertainties. Journal of Environmental Radioavtivity, 151(2), pp. 352-360.

Salehi-Isfahani, D. & Majbouri, M., 2013. Mobility and the dynamics of poverty in Iran: Evidence from the 1992-1995 panel survey. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, pp. 257-267.

Saleth, M. & Dinar, A., 1999. Evaluating Water Institutions and Water Sector Performance. ,  World Bank, Technical Report No. 447..

Sarkissian, A., 2008. Intellectual Property rights for developing countries: Lessons from Iran. Technovation, pp. 786-798.

Schleyer, C., Thhesfeld, I., Hagedorn, K. & al, e., 2007. Approach towards an operational tool to apply institutional analysis for the assessment of policy feasibility within SEAMLESS-IF,  EU.

Selden, L., 2005. on Ground Theory - with some malice. Journal of Documentation, pp. 114-129.

Sengupta, A. et al., 2016. An evaluation of risk assessment framework for industrial accidents in India. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volume 41, p. 295–302.

Shin Park, Y., Egilmez, G. & Kucukvar, M., 2016. Emergy and end-point impact assessment of agricultural and food production in the United States: A supply chain-linked Ecologically-based Life Cycle Assessment. Ecological Indicators, Volume 62, pp. 117-137.

Silverman, D., 1998. Qualitative research: Meaning or practices?. information system journal, pp. 3-20.

Soofi, A. S. & Ghazinoory, S., 2011. The network of the Iranian techno-economic system. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, pp. 591-609.

Spangenberg, J. H., Pfahl, S. & Deller, K., 2002. Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators, 2(1-2), p. 61–77.

Staronova, K., 2007. Mapping of ex-ante policy impact assessment experiences and tools in Europe- Based on a literature Survey and Case Studies from Southeast Europe, Bratislava, Slovak Republic: UNDP.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications.

Sun, Z., Li, X., Qiao, W. & Haghani, A., 2013. Entropy-based performance evaluation on institutional structures of trunk highway management—Case study in China. Transport Policy, Volume 27, p. 85–91.

Swanson, D. et al., 2010. Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(6), pp. 924-939.

Tabatabaeian, H., Khaledi, A. & Norouzi, N., 2009. World Technological Capability Monitoring (WTCM), Tehran- Iran: Iranian Association for Management of Technology.

Tambach, M., Hasselaar, E. & Itard, L., 2010. Assessment of current Dutch energy transition policy instruments for the existing housing stock. Energy Policy, pp. 981-996.

Theesfeld, I., Schleyer, C. & Aznar, O., 2010. The Procedure for institutional compatibility assessment: ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics, pp. 377-399.

Van Gossum, P. et al., 2009. New environmental policy instruments to realize forest expansion in Flanders (northen Belgium): A base for smart regulation?. Land Use Policy, pp. 935-946.

Weijermars, W. & Wesemann, P., 2013. Road safety forecasting and ex-ante evaluation of policy in the netherlands. Transportation Research, pp. Part A 52 64-72.

WTO, 2002. A taxonomy on country experiences on international technology transfers,  Working group on trade and transfer of technology.

الوانی، س.، آذر، ع. و دانایی فرد، ح.، 1394. روش‌شناسی پژوهش کیفی در مدیریت: رویکردی جامع. تهران: اشراقی، صفار.

امامی میبدی، ر. و اشتریان، ک.، 1391. طراحی نظام ارزیابی سیاست‌های عمومی در جمهوری اسلامی ایران. پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی، صص. 7-47.

پریزادی، ع.، 1393. چه منابعی می‌توانند ورودی‌های نظریه‌پردازی داده‌بنیاد باشند [مصاحبه] (30 بهمن 1393).

هومن، ح. ع.، 1385. راهنمای عملی پژوهش کیفی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.