اولویت‌گذاری حوزه‌های علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

2 دانشیار دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران

چکیده

با وجود رشد هزینه‌کرد تحقیق‌وتوسعه در اثر گسترش رویکرد دانش‌بنیان به توسعه اقتصادی، به علت تنوع روزافزون و ماهیت میان‌رشته‌ای فعالیت‌های پژوهشی و نوآوری، هیچ کشوری قادر به پژوهش در لبه علم و فناوری در کلیه حوزه‌های پژوهشی نیست و در نتیجه اولویت‌گذاری از جایگاه ویژه‌ای در سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری برخوردار است. در این مقاله ابتدا ابعاد مختلف (تعاریف، انواع، مدل‌های نظری، فرآیند، تاریخچه، چالش‌ها و روش‌ها) اولویت‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته و سپس تخصصی‌سازی هوشمند به عنوان به‌روزترین راهبرد مبتنی بر اولویت‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری معرفی شده و در پایان نیز با رویکردی انتقادی تجربه اولویت‌گذاری در نقشه جامع علمی کشور مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفته است. مطالعات صورت‌گرفته نشان می‌دهد که کلیه سازوکارهای اولویت‌گذاری با توجه به الگوی وابستگی به مسیر تدوین اولویت‌ها، چسبندگی تاریخی نهادها و منطق متفاوت و واگرای مداخلات دولتی به طور هم‌زمان مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرند. با این حال ساختار کلی اولویت‌گذاری علم و فناوری کشورهای مختلف در حال همگرایی به سمت تأکید مجدد بر اولویت‌های کارکردی، رویکرد نظام‌مند به تدوین راهبرد و اولویت‌گذاری، ترکیب رویکردهای بالا به پائین و پائین به بالا و تقسیم کار بیشتر در اثر افزایش تعداد بازیگران مؤثر در فرآیند اولویت‌گذاری می‌باشد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Priority-Setting in Science, Technology and Innovation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Fatemi 1
  • MohammadReza Arasti 2
1 Ph.D Candidate in Science & Technology Policy Making, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of MOT, Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Despite the growing expenditure of R&D caused the development of a knowledge-based approach to economic development, no country is able to research on the edge of science and technology in all areas of research, due to the increasing diversity and the nature of the interdisciplinary activities of research and innovation and thus, priority-setting has a significant role in science, technology, and innovation policy. In this research, various dimensions (definitions, types, theoretical models, process, history, challenges and methods) of STI priority-setting have been studied. Then, Smart Specialization has been introduced as the most up-to-date strategy based on the STI priority-setting, and in the end the prioritizing experience in Iran’s comprehensive scientific map has been evaluated with a critical approach. The study indicates that all mechanisms for priority-setting are used simultaniously according to the path-dependency of priority formation, the historical stickiness of institutions, and the diffrentiated rationales behind government interventions; and the problem is the combination pattern of mechanisms. However, the overall structure of priority-setting among different countries is converging to re-emphasizing on functional priorities, systematic approach to strategy and prioritization, combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, and division of work among various actors involving in the priority-setting proccess.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Priority-Setting
  • STI
  • Smart Specialization
  • Iran’s Comprehensive Scientific Map
[1] Brattström, E., & Hellström, T. (2019). Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities. Energy Policy, 127, 240-247.

[2] Fallah, H., & Jahanbaz, A. (2011). Designing a method for prioritizing and budgeting research topics aimed at developing economic activities. Science and Technology Policy, 3(3), 79-92. {In Persian}.

[3] Grebenyuk, A., Shahsnov, S., & Sokolov, A. (2016). S&T Priority Setting. International Practices and the Case of Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP, 67.

[4] Gassler, H., Polt, W., Schindler, J., Weber, M., Mahroum, S., Kubeczko, K., & Keenan, M. (2004). Priorities in science and technology policy-an international comparison. Project Report). Vienna/Seibersdorf: Institut fur Technologie-und Regionalpolitik.

[5] Godinho, M. M., & Caraça, J. (2009, October). Setting research priorities: A taxonomy of policy models. In 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy (pp. 1-10). IEEE.

[6] Hellström, T., Jacob, M., & Sjöö, K. (2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 599-608.

[7] Gassler, H., Polt, W., & Rammer, C. (2007). Priority Setting in Research & Technology Policy: Historical Developments and Recent Trends (No. 36-2007). Working paper.

[8] Stewart, J. (1995). Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Research Policy, 24(1), 115-126.

[9] Salo, A., & Liesiö, J. (2006). A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5(01), 65-88.

[10] OECD. (2009). Enhancing Research Performance through Evaluation, Impact Assessment and Priority Setting.

[11] Ghazinoory, S., & Ghazinoori, S. (2017). An introduction to science, technology, and innovation policy. Tarbiat Modares University publication. {In Persian}.

[12] Bagheri Moghaddam, N., Sahhaf Zadeh, M., Emamian, S., & Iran Khah, A. (2008). Choosing the suitable approach in determining technology research priorities: Membrane technology at the National Iranian Gas Company. Science and Technology Policy, 1(4), 1-11. {In Persian}.

[13] Unido. (2004). Foresight methodology, Training Module 2.

[14] Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., ... & Howden, M. (2018). A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agricultural Systems, 167, 161-17.

[15] Mortazavi, M., Ranaei, H., & Abbasi, H. (2011). The application of Multi Attribute Decision Methods (MADM) on prioritizing Iranian fisheries research projects. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 10(1), 47-66.

[16] Georghiou, L., & Harper, J. C. (2011). From priority-setting to articulation of demand: Foresight for research and innovation policy and strategy. Futures, 43(3), 243-251.

[17] Georghiou, L., Elvira Uyarra, A., Saliba Scerri, R., Castillo, N., & Cassingena Harper, J. (2014). Adapting smart specialisation to a micro-economy–the case of Malta. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 428-447.

[18] Janssen, W., Kassam, A., & de Janvry, A. (2003). A regional approach to setting research priorities and implementation: Towards satisfying national, regional and global concerns. Journal of agricultural & food information, 5(2), 67-100.

[19] Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: toward smart innovation policies. Growth and change, 44(2), 355-389.

[20] McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291-1302.

[21] European Commission. (2012). Guide to Regional/National Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). European Commission, Bruxelles.

[22] Hepburn, N. C. (2014). Minding the Gap Between Promise and Performance: The Ontario Liberal Government's Research and Innovation Policy, 2003-2011 (Doctoral dissertation).

[23] Krammer, S. M. (2017). Science, technology, and innovation for economic competitiveness: The role of smart specialization in less-developed countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 95-107.

[24] Sjoer, E., Nørgaard, B., & Goossens, M. (2012). Opportunities and Challenges in the Implementation of the Knowledge Triangle. 40th annual conference of Societe Europeenne pour la Formation des Ingenieurs (SEFI), 23-26.

[25] Uyarra, E. (2007). Key Dilemmas of Regional Innovation Policies 1. Innovation, 20(3), 243-261.

[26] Paliokaitė, A., Martinaitis, Ž., & Sarpong, D. (2016). Implementing smart specialisation roadmaps in Lithuania: Lost in translation?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 143-152.

[27] Majidpour, M., & Namdarian, L. (2015). Identifying Barriers to the Implementation of Iran’s documents of science and technology policy. Innovation Management, 4(4), 31-60. {In Persian}.

[28] Rahbar, A., Nasr Esfahani, A., & Askarian, M. (2014). Reflections on Iran’s comprehensive scientific map in order to enrich the future editions of the map. Industrial Technology Development Journal, 12(23), 41-58. {In Persian}.

[29] Zaker Salehi, G., & Zaker Salehi, A. (2009). Analyzing the content of Iran’s comprehensive scientific map draft and proposing its evaluation model. Science and Technology Policy, 2(2), 29-46. {In Persian}.

[30] Izadi, S., & Varedi, S. (2017). Critisizing Iran’s comprehensive scientific map from a strategic planning perspective. 1st Conference of Governance and Public Policy. {In Persian}.