سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری: ابعاد و پیامدهای اجتماعی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

مدرس دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران

چکیده

در این مقاله، جنبه‌هایی از ارتباط مطالعات اجتماعی با سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری بررسی می‌شود. علم، فناوری و نوآوری، زمینه‌هایی مطالعاتی برای پژوهشگران علوم اجتماعی و مدیریت بوده‌اند. فضای همرسی این دو، سیاست‌گذاری است. سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری به عنوان بخشی از سیاست‌گذاری عمومی، نیازمند شناخت معنای علم، فناوری و نوآوری در نهادهای اجتماعی، اقتصادی، سیاسی و اداری جامعه‌ است. بکارگیری اطلاعات و درک فرهنگی و تاریخی جامعه در سیاست‌گذاری ضروری است چرا که جوامع انسانی، مکان‌مند و زمان‌مند هستند. یعنی نه تنها جا افتادن یک سیاست خاص در جوامع مختلف شرایط و پیامدهای متفاوتی دارد بلکه بر پایه تجارب تاریخی، در مقاطع مختلف برای یک جامعه نیز ممکن است معنای یک علم، فناوری و نوآوری خاص دگرگون شود. به این ترتیب، هم اجتماعی بودن علم، فناوری و نوآوری مهم است و هم پیامدهای سیاست‌گذاری در مورد آنها برای جامعه. در نتیجه، لازم است مواردی همچون اولویت‌گذاری آنها، اشاعه آنها در جامعه، ارتباط آنها با مردم‌سالاری و پیامدهای اخلاقی‌شان برای جامعه مطالعه شوند. پیش از سیاست‌گذاری، این مطالعات برای سیاست‌گذاری هوشمندانه‌تر و پس از آن برای ارزیابی پیامدها و بهبود سیاست‌ها لازم هستند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

STI Policy Making: Social Aspects and Cocequences

نویسنده [English]

  • Sadeq Peivasteh
Lecturer in Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In this article, some aspects of the relationship between social studies and policy making in science, technology and innovation (STI) are examined. STI have been the fields of study for social science and management researchers. The juncion point of these two is policy making. science, technology and innovation Policy making (STIP) as a part of puplic policy, needs to understand the meaning of science, technology and innovation in the social, economic, political and administrative institutions of society. The use of cultural and historical information and understanding of socety in policy making is necessary because human societies are spatial and temporal. Not only the embedment of a particular policy in different societies has different conditions and consequences, but also in different times for the same society, based on historical experiences, the meaning of a particular science, technology and innovation may be different. In this way, for a society, the social aspects of STI is important, as well as the consequences of STIP. To summarize, it is necessary to study issues such as STI prioritizing, STI diffusion, relationship between STIP and democracy, and their ethical consequences for society. Prior to policy-making, these studies are needed for more intelligent policy making and then for evaluating outcomes and improving policies.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • STI
  • Policy Making
  • Social Studies
  • Prioritization
  • Propagation
  • Cosequence
 

[1] Martin, B. (2012). The Evolution of Science Policy and Innovation Studies. Research Policy, 41, 1219-1239.

[2] Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 599-631.

[3] Roosth, S., & SiLBE, S. U. S. A. N. (2009). Science and technology studies: From controversies to posthumanist social theory. Social Theory, 451.

[4] Sismodo, S. (2011). An Introduction to STS. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, UK.

[5] Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science, 14(3), 399-441.

[6] Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (eds.). (2012). The Social Constructions of Technological Systems. Anniversary edition., Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

[7] Morshedi, A. (2013). Introduction to Sociology of Technology: Review of Social Studies of Science and Technology. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 2(1), 81-94. {In Persian}.

[8] Papon, P. & Barre, R. (1996). Science and technology systems: a global review (pp. 8-22). UNESCO, Paris.

[9] Saghafi, F., & Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2019). Theoretical Advances in Explaining Technological Transition, with Emphasis on Socio-technical Systems Approach. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 8(2), 113-128. {In Persian}.

[10] Ladrière, J. (1977). The challenge presented to cultures by science and technology. UNESCO, Paris.

[11] Roshany, S. (2018). Application of Agent Based Modeling in the Analysis of Complex Social Systems: The Methodology of Innovation Systems Analysis. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 8(2), 59-70. {In Persian}.

[12] Ghaneirad, M. A. (2010). Cultural Dichotomies of Technology (Cultural Sociology and technology Analysis). Journal of Iran Cultural Research, 2(4), 107-146. doi: 10.7508/ijcr.2009.08.004. {In Persian}.

[13] Zarghami, H. (2018). An overview of the patterns of development of university, industry and government relations to promote innovation. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 8(2), 103-112.

[14] Vadadhir, A., & Ghazitabatabaei, M. (2007). Sociology of technology science. Sociological Review, 31(1), 125-142. {In Persian}.

[15] Naghavi, M., & Mosleh, E. (2015). A Reflection on Technologies Development in Japan and Lessons for Iran considering Andrew Feinberg Critical Theory on Technology. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 4(4), 65-76. {In Persian}.

[16] Alston, S. (2007). The Kuznets Process and the Inequality Relationship. Journal of Development Economics, 40, 43-67.

[17] Kalleberg, R. (2000). Universities: Complex bundle institutions and the projects of enlightenment. In Comparative Perspectives on Universities (pp. 219-255). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

[18] Goodin, R., & Tilly, Ch. (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political analysis. Chapter 37: Technology, by Beiker, V. E. (pp 678-764). Oxford University Press, London.

[19] Mohseni. M. (2008). Principles of sociology of science (pp. 156, 191 & 203). Tahoori, Tehran. {In Persian}.

[20] Gholipour, H. (2017). Subjects, studies and futures of social psychology of science; Suggestions for science and technology policy makers. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 7(3), 5-16. {In Persian}.

[21] Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2007). The handbook of science and technology studies. Science, 158(5), N48.

[22] Shapin, S. (2007). Science and the modern world.

[23] Sadeghikia, M. (2018). Innovation Policy: What, Why, and How. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 8(1), 69-86. {In Persian}.

[24] Mobin Dehkordi, A., & Keshtkar Haranki, M. (2015). Social Innovation: An Exploration of Conceptualization Based on the Content Analysis of Definitions. Innovation Management Journal, 4(2), 115-134. {In Persian}.

[25] Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1995). The handbook of science and technology studies. SAGE, London.

[26] Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of science and technology studies. Mit Press.

[27] Eliasson, G., ELIASSON., & Jones-Sepulveda. (2017). Visible Costs and Invisible Benefits. Springer.

[28] Kyrre, J., & Olsen, B. (2009). A companion to the philosophy of technology. Hong Kong: Blackwell. P 492.

[29] Edler, J., Cunningham, P., & Gök, A. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 543-564). Edward Elgar Publishing.

[30] Thorpe, C. (2008). Political theory in science and technology studies. The handbook of science and technology studies, 63-82.

[31] Winner, L. (1993). Social constructivism: Opening the black box and finding it empty. Science as culture, 3(3), 427-452.

[32] UNCTAD. (2016). Science, technology and innovation policy review of islamic republic of Iran. Switzerland United Nations publication.

[33] Sadeh, S., Mirramezani, M., Mesgaran, M. B., Feizpour, A., & Azadi, P. (2019). The Scientific Output of Iran: Quantity, Quality, and Corruption.

[34] Salehi Omran, E., & Hoseini Tabar, F. (2014). Graduate to Higher Education or Employment in the Labor market: An Examination of Theoretical Viewpoints. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 4(3), 33-52. {In Persian}.

[35] Moed, H., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp: 695-717). Springer, USA.

[36] Ghaneirad, M. A. (2005). Uneven Development of Higher Education, Unemployment of Alummni and Elits Immigration. Social Welfare, 4(15), 169-208. {In Persian}.

[37] Ehsani, V., Azami, M., Najafi, S., & Soheili, F. (2016). An introduction to explaining the position of the concept of "effectiveness" in Iran prevalent "mental model". In: Order to investigate the reasons of inattention to the effectiveness of the country’s increasing researches. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 6(2), 5-28. {In Persian}.

[38] Ehsani, V., Najafi, S., & Kokabi, M. (2017). From "Dominated by aristocrats" to "Base of society": the evolution of scientists and innovators position during the process of "Knowledgization" and some lessons for Iran. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 7(3), 29-44. {In Persian}.

[39] Ghaneirad, M. A., & Morshedi, A. (2011). Survey of Public Understanding of Science and Technology; Pilot Study in Tehran. Science and Technology Policy, 3(3), 93-103. {In Persian}.

[40] Ghaneirad, M. A., & Khosrokhavar, F. (2011). Sociology of scientific actors in Iran. Tehran: Elm. {In Persian}.