Proposing a Framework of Science and Technology Policy Instruments Based on Meta-Synthesis Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Tarbiat Modares University

2 at Tarbiat Modares University

3 Iran Research Organization for Science and Technology

Abstract

The realization of policy makers' desired ideals and long-term objectives requires employing appropriate policy tools. Studying the theoretical foundations of policy-making tools makes it clear that each researcher's classification of policy tools depends on their respective policy-making environment and specific objective in their policy statement, and no specific classification covers all policy tools. In this study, more than 67 valid articles and books from the policy instruments literature are identified and different clusters are examined with qualitative meta-synthesis method. This selected framework is validated by conducting purposeful interviews with experts in the field of science and technology and five case-studies on policy documents. The framework merges supply side policies, demand side policies and framework policies. The results point to an imbalance between the supply and demand sides of national policies.

Keywords

References

Alic, J. (1999). Technology policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Washington: Heinz center for science, economics and environment.
Azkia, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2006). Outcome of Job Satisfaction Studies in Educational Organizations. Journal of Social Science Letter, Volume (27), 1-26.
Bagheri, H., & Yagfhmaei, F., & Ashk Torab, T. (2011). Patient Dignity and Related Factors: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis Study.  Journal ofKnowledge & Health.
Bench, S., & Day, T. (2010). The user experience of critical care discharges:a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. international journal of nursing studies , 487-499.
Bikar, V., Capron, H., & Cincera, M. (2004). An Integrated Scheme for the Evaluation of Institution set-ups: The Case of the Belgian Regional Innovation system. Bruxelles: Association de Science Regionale De langue Francaise.
Bocher, M. (2012). A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. Forest Policy and Econimics, 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 (EZ).
Bromley, & Allan, D. (2004). Technology policy. Technology in society, 455-468.
Brukas, V., & Sallnas, O. (2012). Forest management plan as a policy instrument:Carrot, Stick or sermon. land use policy, 605-613.
Canter, U., & Pyka, A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 759-775.
Clark, J., & Guy, K. (1997). Innovation and Competitiveness. London: Technopolis & Brighton.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks Ca: Sage.
De Bruijn, H. A., & Hufen, H. A. (1998). The Traditional approach to policy instruments. In G. B. Peters, & F. K. Van Nispen, Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration (pp. 14-33). cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Delkon, A., & Sobortini, S. (2012). innovation policies in SMEs. Milan: Center on Public Policy.
Dheensa, S., Metcalfe, A., & Williams, R. A. (2013). Men's expriences of antenatal screening: A metasynthesis of the qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 121-133.
Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case Study Methodology in Business Research. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Dunn, W. N. (1988). Methods of the Second type: coping with the Wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Policy Studies, 720-37.
Easterbrook, S., Yu, E., Aranda, J., Fan, Y., Horkoff, J., Leica, M., & Abdul Qadir, R. (2005). Do Viewpoints Lead to Better Conceptual Models? An Exploratory Case Study. 13Th IEEE International Conference on Requirement Engineering, 199-208.
Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented Innovation Policy. Research Policy, 1757-1769.
Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., & Kok, G. (2006). one size fits all? Policy instruments should fit the segments of target group. Energy Policy, 3464-3474.
Ghazinoori, S., & Ghazinoori, S. (2012). Science and technology policy in the form of general and specific policies. Rahyaft, Volume (50), 49-51.
Ghazinoori, S., & Ghazinoori, S. (2012). Introduction to Policy Science, Technology and Innovation. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press.
Group, S.-E. E. (2002). EU DG Research.
Gupta, S., & Tirpak, d. (2005). policies, Instruments and co-operatives arrangements. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report climate change.
Hassanzade, A., Namdarian, L., & Elahi, S. (2011). Developing a Framework for Evaluating service oriented architecture governance (SOAG). Knowledge-Based Systems, 716-730.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2001). Studing public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. translated by: Monavarian, As., & Goolshan, A. Tehran: Management and Planning Organisation of Islamic Republic of Iran.
In't veld, R. J. (1993). The Dynamics of Educational Performance Indicators. International perspectives of regional Development and regional organization.
Johansson, B., Karlsson, C., & Backman, K. (2007). Innovation policy instruments. jonkoping international business school and royal institute of technology.
Kapsali, M. (2011). How to Implement Innovation Policies through Projects Successfully. Technovation, 615-626.
LALL, S. (2006). Technology policy and encourage market. Tehran: Industrial Policy Bureau, Sharif University of Technology Studies Center.
Leth, M., & Johnson, F. (2003). Selecting policy instruments to drive change in natural resource management. Victoria: Department of primary industries .
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989a). Implementation as a guide to policy formulation: A Question of When Rather than Whether. International Review of Administrative Science, 632-52.
Lockie, S. (2013). Market Instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land use policy, 90-98.
McGuire, A., & Stuart, P. (1983). The Role of the Test Discount Rates in the NHS. Public policy and Adminstration, 11-22.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1987). Evaluating Innovation policies: The German Experience. Technovation, 317-330.
Mohammadi, As., & Bigdeloo, N. (2012). Supportive tools for knowledge based companies based in science and technology parks. Rahyaft, 5-13.
Montjoy, R. S., & O'Toole, L. J. (1990, August 30). Policy Instruments and politics: Multiple Regression and Intergovernmental Aid. paper presented at the annual meeting of the american political Science Association.
Mowery, D. (1989). Technology and the pursuit of economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Mowery, D. C. (1995). The Practice of Technology Policy. In P. Stoneman, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological change (pp. 513-557). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nannen, V., & van den Bergh, J. (2010). Policy instruments for evolution of bounded rationality: Application to climate-energy problems. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76-93.
Noblit, G., & Hare, R. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage.
Panahi, J., & Tabaeian, S.K., & Tavasoli, AS. (2013). Providing a framework for science, technology and innovation policies in terms of supply, demand and infrastructure and proposing policy proposals to improve the demand system. First International Conference on Technology Commercialization.
Peters, G. B., & Van Nispen, F. K. (1998). Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Poister, H., & Streib, G. (1989). Management Tools in Municipal Governments: Trends over the past Decade. Public Administration Review, 240-48.
Rafaei Shirpak, Kh., & Gorogeh, S., & Chinichian, M. (2010). Meta-synthesis Qualitative research in Health Sciences. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology (IJE), 51-57.
Ragwitz, M., Resch, G., Faber, T., & Huber, C. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation of policy instruments to support renewable electricity in EU member States. Karsruhe, Germany: Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research .
Rennings, K., Koschel, H., Brockmann, K. L., & Kuhn, I. (1999). A regulatory framework for a policy of sustainability: Lessons from the neo-liberal school. Ecological Economics, 197-212.
Salamon, L., & Lund, M. (1989). Beyond Privatization. Washington DC: Urban Institute press.
Sandelowski, M., & Barros, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. springer publishing company.
Sarkician, A. (2005). Technology Policy: Principles and Concepts. Tehran: Publication Center of Modern Industries.
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The Key to better Government . Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of politics, 510-529.
Shrestha, R. K. (2001). The choice of environmental policy instruments under correlated uncertainty. Resource and Energy Economics, 175-185.
Sohrabi, B., & Azami, A., & Yazdani, H. (2011). The Pathology of Research on Islamic Management with an Over-Combined Approach. Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 9-24.
  Sifodin, a., & Salimi, M., & Seed Esfahani, M. (2008). Challenges to Science and Technology Policy.  International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Production Management (Ijie) (International Journal of Engineering Science) (Persian), 1-15.
Tabatabaiyan, S.H., & Khaledi, A., & Naghizadeh, R., & Noroozi, N. (2010). 2009 Global Monitoring Technology Capability Report, Tehran: Iranian Technology Management Association ( IRAMOT).
Tassey, G. (1985). The Technology Policy Experiment as a policy Research tool. Research Policy, 39-52.
Thain, C. (1985). The Education of the treasury: The medium-term financial strategy. public administration , 261-85.
Throne, s. (2009). The role of qualitative research within an evidence-based context: Can metasynthesis be the answer. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 569-575.
Weiss, G. (2000). Evaluation of policy instruments for protective forest management in Austria. forest policy and economics, 243-255.
Working Group on trade and transfer of Technology. (2002). A taxonomy on country experiences on international technology transfer. World trade organization.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks Ca: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd, revised end). Thousand Oaks Ca: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3nd, revised end). Thousand Oaks Ca: Sage.                                                                                                                     
Innovation Management Journal
Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 8
September 2014
Pages 103-124

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 17 May 2014
  • Accept Date: 02 August 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics