مناقشه بر سر کاربردی نبودن دانش دانشگاهی: به سوی نظریه "ساخت اجتماعی بهره‌برداری از دانش"

نویسنده

استاد گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

دانش تولیدی در حوزه علوم انسانی و اجتماعی امری اعتباری است زیرا فرآیند هرمنوتیک دوگانه یافتن قوانین لایتغیر در امور انسانی و اجتماعی را بسیار دشوار میسازد پژوهشهای انجامشده متعدد با رد جهانشمولی دانش تولیدی در عرصههای انسانی و اجتماعی و طرح بسترمندی چنین دانشی مهر تییدی بر ساخت اجتماعی دانش یا اعتباری بودن آن زدهاند اگر چه پژوهشهایی در باب صبغه ساخت اجتماعی و اعتباری دانش انجام شده ولی چندان به ساخت اجتماعی کاربست دانش یا اعتباری بودن استفاده از دانش توجه نشده است این نظریه مدعی است اگر چه دانشگاهها و مراکز پژوهشی در تولید دانش و بعضا بهرهبرداری از آن نقش ایفا میکنند ولی مقصر اصلی عدم کاربست دانش آکادمیک صرفا این محافل علمی نیستند نویسنده امیدوار است با پذیرش این نظریه سیاق گفتاری دانشپژوهان و خطمشیگذاران ملی در باب استفاده نکردن از دانش تولیدی دانشگاهی اثربخش در ایران قدری متحول شود

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Dispute over Inaplicability of Academic Knowledge: Toward a Theory of "Social Construction of Knowledge Utilization

نویسنده [English]

  • Hassan Danaeefard
Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Management & Economics,Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Knowledge of humanities and social sciences is enacted knowledge because based on the process of dublel hermeneutic seeking any unvarian law in the humanities and social affairs is very difficult Several studies refute the universality of knowledge in the humanities and social sciences and contexcuality of knowledge affirms the social construction of knowledge or enacted social knowldege Although there are several studies on social construction of knowledge and enacted social knowledge but little has been done to social utilization of knowledge This theory asserts that although universities and research centers contribute in generating knowledge and sometimes utilization of it but the main culprit for the nonapplication of academic knowledge is not f scientific circlesThe author hopes that by accepting this theory by scholars and policy makerswe can change the national discourse about the inapplicability of academic knowledge of academic production in Iran

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Social Construction
  • Academic Knowledge
  • Social Utilization of Knowledge
[1] Danaeefard, H., & Kazemi, S. H. (1389). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (Tranlated from Neuman, W. L.). Tehran: Mehraban Publisher. {In Persian}.

[2] Danaeefard, H. (1395). Organization Theory: modern, postmodern, and symbolic perspectives (Tranlated from Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A.). Tehran: Safar. {In Persian}.

[3] Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459-470.

[4] Green, A., & Bennett, S. (2007). Sound choices: Enhancing capacity for evidence-informed health policy. World Health Organisation, Switzerland.

[5] Havelock, R. (1969). Planning for innovation through the dissemination and utilization of scientific knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: CRUSK, Institute for Social Research.

[6] Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 537-578.

[7] Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333-349.

[8] Rich, R. F. (1979). The pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(1), 6-30.

[9] Rich, R. F. (1997). Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 10(3), 11-24.

[10] Lomas, J. (1990). Finding audiences, changing beliefs: the structure of research use in Canadian health policy. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 15(3), 525-542.

[11] Yin, R. K., & Moore, G. B., (1988). Lessons on the utilization of research from nine case experiences in the natural hazardsfield. Knowledge in Society: the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 1(3), 25-44.

[12] Rich, R. F., & Oh, C. H. (1993). The utilization of policy research. In Encyclopedia of Policy Studies. Nagel, S. Ed. 2nd Edn Marcel Dekkar, New York.

[13] Oh, C. H., & Rich, R. F. (1996). Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 3-35.

[14] Miles, J. A. (2012). Management and organization theory. Translated by Danaeefard, H. Tehran: Mehraban Publisher.

[15] Danaeefard, H. (2012). Designing National Observatory of Management and Public Policy Lesson - Drawing of Iran: Theoretical Rationale, Operational Conceptualization and its Challenges. Journal of Sicence & Technology Policy, 4(4), 13-24. {In Persian}.

[16] Danaeefard, H., Sadeghi, H., & Mostefazadeh, M. (1394). Exploring and analyzing politicization of bureaucracy in political systems. Strategic Management Qurterly, 9(2), 57-86. {In Persian}.

[17] Peter, J. M., & Ashley, E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Paper presented at the International Conference on public policy, 26-28 June 2013, Grenoble, France.

[18] Danaeefard, H. (2016). "The Getting Ride of" Public Policies in Iran: Conceptual Foundations, Charactrsitics, Antecedents and Concequences. Journal of Sicence & Technology Policy, 8(2), 79-96. {In Persian}.

[19] Hood, C., & Jackson, M. (1994). Keys for locks in administrative argument. Administration & society, 25(4), 467-488.

[20] Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management review, 14(4), 516-531.

 

[21] Comelissen, J. P. (2006). CornelissenMaking sense of theory construction: Metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1579-1597.

[22] Pollitt, C. (1985). "Performance" in government and the public service. Paper presented to public administration committee. Conference, York, England. Pp 12-13.

[23] Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social construction of reality. Encyclopedia of communication theory, 892-895.

[24] Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 1-8.

[25] Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: modern, sympolic, postmodern. New York: Oxford University Press.

[26] Washington Jr, E. D. (2000). Knowing, believing, and understanding: The social construction of knowledge in the OJ Simpson criminal trial. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(3), 302-316.

[27] Ware, N. C., & Weiss, M. G. (1994). Neurasthenia and the social construction of psychiatric knowledge. Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review, 31(2), 101-124.

28] Winsor, D. A. (1990). The construction of knowledge in organizations: Asking the right questions about the Challenger. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4(2), 7-20.

[29] Danaeefard, H. (1395). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern. (Translated from Hatch, M. J., & Cunlif, A. L.). Tehran: Safar. p 102. {In Persian}.

[30] Ingram, H., Schneider, A. L., & DeLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. Theories of the policy process, 2, 93-126.

[31] Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Thesocial construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.

[32] Van de Van, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Translated by Damnaeefard, H. (1390). Tehran: Safar.{In Persian}.

[33] Danaeefard, H. (2009). An analysis of generating knowldeg barriers in human resource science:implications for improving quality of Iranian sciemcecapacity. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 2(1), 1-16. {In Persian}.

[34] Danaeefard, H. (1395). Theory building: Founations and methodologies. Tehran: Samt. {In Persian}.

[35] Ions, E. (1977). Against Behaviouralism: A Critique of Behavioural Science. Oxford: Blackwell.

[36] Zey-Ferrell, M. (1981). Criticisms of the Dominant Perspective on Organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 22, 181–205.

 

[