ارزیابی سیاست‌های علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیأت‌علمی پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران

2 عضو هیأت‌علمی دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران

چکیده

ارزیابی سیاست در تمام حوزه‌ها امری ضروری و مستلزم بهبود کارآمدی دولت‌ها و پاسخگویی آنهاست. در حوزه علم، فناوری و نوآوری نیز همسو با رشد سیاست‌گذاری‌های ملی و منطقه‌ای، شاهد رشد پیشینه و تجربیات ارزیابی این سیاست‌ها بوده‌ایم. در این مقاله با مرور مفاهیم و مؤلفه‌های مختلف ارزیابی سیاست شامل ابعاد و معیارها، زمان‌بندی، روش‌ها و شاخص‌ها، تلاش شده تمام اجزای یک فرآیند کامل ارزیابی سیاست ارائه شود. ابعاد اصلی ارزیابی شامل تناسب، کارایی و اثربخشی که شاخص‌های ارزیابی ذیل آنها تعیین می‌شوند؛ زمان‌بندی چهارگانه آینده‌نگر، هم‌زمان، بینابین و گذشته‌نگر و همچنین سطوح سه‌گانه سیاست، برنامه و فعالیت، به همراه روش‌های کمّی، کیفی و نیمه‌کمّی، مؤلفه‌های یک ارزیابی هستند که در فرآیندی نظام‌مند اطلاعات لازم را برای گروه‌های خبره فراهم می‌کنند تا نتایج ارزیابی علاوه بر انتشار، بازخوردهای مناسب را برای بهبود اهداف و برنامه‌ها در اختیار سیاست‌گذاران قرار دهند. مقاله همچنین به نحوه تدوین ارزیابی‌پذیر سیاست پرداخته و در نهایت، نمونه تجربه ارزیابی سیاست فناوری نانو در ایران ارائه می‌شود.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Evaluation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Mohammad Soltani 1
  • Seyyed Habibollah Tabatabaeian 2
1 Faculty Member,Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
2 Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Policy evaluation is essential for governments to improving effectiveness and accountability. In science, technology, and innovation (STI) domain in line with the growth of national and regional policymaking, the literature and experiences of policy evaluation have been developed. In this paper, after reviewing concepts and various components of policy evaluation including criteria, timing, methodologies, and indicators a complete evaluation process with its all modules is presented. The main criteria including appropriateness, efficiency, and effectiveness with their indicators, quadruple timing including ex-ante, real-time, intermediate, and ex-post evaluation, triple levels of aggregation including policy, program, and activity as well as quantitative, qualitative, and semiquantitative methodologies are mentioned as evaluation components that prepare necessary information for evaluation expert groups in a systematic process. The results of policy evaluation are always published and provide feedback to policymakers for improving the goals and programs. The paper also discusses the evaluability of policies and at the end presents an evaluation experience for nanotechnology policies in Iran.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Policy evaluation
  • Program Evaluation
  • Science
  • Technology and Innovation Policy
  • Nanotechnology
[1] Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public administration, 80(1), 1-22.

[2] Ghazinoory, S., and Ghazinoory, S. (2012). Policies Evaluation, in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Making; An Introduction. Tarbiat Modares University Press. {in Persian}.

[3] Colebatch, H. K. (2006). What work makes policy?. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 309-321.

[4] Runnels, V., Andrew, C., & Rae, J. (2017). Building Evaluation Capacity in a Community-Level Program: Lessons Learned from Evaluating Youth Futures. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 32(1).

[5] Pagaconstantantinov, G., and Polt, W. (1997). Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: an Overview. In OECD Conference on Policy Evaluation.

[6] Georghiou, L. (1998). Issues In the Evaluation Of Innovation And Technology Policy. International J. of theory, research and Practice, 4, 37-52.

[7] Lundvall, B. A., and Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. In Oxford Handbook of Innovation, e.a. Fagerberg J., Editor. Oxford University Press. pp. 599-631.

[8] Luukkonen, T. (1998). The Difficulties in Assessing the Impact of EU Framework Programmes. Research Policy, 27(6), 599-610.

[9] Peterson, J., and Sharp, M. (1998). Technology Policy in the European Union. London: Macmillan.

[10] Sutton, R. (1999). The policy process: an overview. Overseas Development Institute.

[11] Bridgman, P., and Davis, G. (2004). The Australian policy handbook. Allen & Unwin Academic.

[12] Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J., Tübke, A., Zinöcker, K., Eth, S. A., Boden, M., Bührer, S., Ulb, H. C., & Ulb, M. C. (2002). RTD evaluation toolbox. European Comision, Sevilla.

[13] Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2010). Impact Assessment Toolkit; a guide to undertaking an impact assessment and completing the IA Template. London.

[14] Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., and Wholey, J. S. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation. John Wiley & Sons.

[15] Hill, M., and Varone, F. (2016). The public policy process. Routledge.

[16] Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 3-17.

[17] Arnold, E., and Balázs, K. (1998). The Evaluation of Publicly Funded Basic Research. Technopolis: Brighton, UK.

[18] Linton, J. D., and Walsh, S. T. (2008). A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(5), 583-594.

[19] Miller, J. C., Serrato, R., Represas-Cardenas, J. M., & Kundahl, G. A. (2004). The handbook of nanotechnology: business, policy, and intellectual property law. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

[20] Islam, N., and Miyazaki, K. (2009). Nanotechnology innovation system: Understanding hidden dynamics of nanoscience fusion trajectories. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(1), 128-140.

[21] Nagel, S. S. (1999). Policy Analysis Methods. New Science Publishers Inc.

[22] Georghiou, L., and Keenan, M. (2006). Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact. Technological forecasting and social change, 73(7), 761.

[23] Arnold, E., Åström, T., Glass, C., and Salczi, M. (2018). How should we evaluate complex programmes for innovation and socio-technical transitions?. Technopolis Group.

[24] Soltani, A. M. (2012). A Policy Evaluation Model for Iran Nanotechnology National Plan, in Faculty of Management and Accounting. Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran. {In Persian}.

[25] Smith, G. (1999). Make Success Measurable! A Mindbook-Workbook for Setting Goals and Taking Action. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[26] Lengrand, L., & Associés, S. I. (2006). A Practical Guide to Evaluating Innovation Programmes. European Communitoes, Brussels-Luxembourg.

[27] Georghiou, L. (2002). Impact and additionality of innovation policy. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders.

[28] Renda, A., Schrefler, L., and Von Dewall, F. A. (2006). Ex post evaluation of the MAP 2001-2005 initiative and suggestions for the CIP 2007-2013. Study commissioned by the Budget Committee of the European Parliament. CEPS Special Report.

[29] Bovens, M., Hart, P. T., and Kuipers, S. (2006). The Politics Of Policy Evaluation. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford University Press.

[30] Soltani, A. M., Tabatabaeian, S. H., Hanafizadeh, P., & Bamdad Soofi, J. (2011). An evaluation scheme for nanotechnology policies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 7303-7312.

[31] McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Evaluation and program planning, 22(1), 65-72.

[32] Cunion, K. M. (1995). UK Government Departments experience of RT&D programme evaluation and methodology. Scientometrics, 34(3), 363-374.

[33] Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system.

[34] Ruegg, R. T., and Feller, I. (2003). A toolkit for evaluating public R&D investment: models, methods, and findings from ATP's first decade. Washington: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[35] Lall, S., & Teubal, M. (1998). “Market-stimulating” technology policies in developing countries: A framework with examples from East Asia. World development, 26(8), 1369-1385.

[36] Iran Nanotechnology Innovation Council (INIC). (2005). The Future Strategy 1: The Islamic Republic of Iran's ten-year National Nanotechnology Development Plan 2006-2015. Tehran. {In Persian}.

[37] Iran Nanotechnology Innovation Council (INIC). (2017). Nanotechnology National Plan 2025, Cabinet, G. (Editor). Iran Nanotechnology Innovation Council (INIC), Tehran. {In Persian}.

[38] Ghazinoory, S., and Tavassoli Zadeh, S. (2008). Assessing NINI (National Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative) by BSC; & Explaining The Role of “Social Capital” As a Missing Link In NIS Theory. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 1(4), 49-59. {In Persian}.

[39] Amiri, S., Nikkam, N., and Sahebinejad, M. (2008). Statistical Survey of Nanotechnology related Patents as an Indicator of Nanotechnology Creation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 1(3), 1-13. {In Persian}.

[40] Iran Nanotechnology Innovation Council (INIC). (2005). Nanotechnology National Plan; The complementary document. Tehran. {In Persian}.

[41] Soltani, A. M., and Asadifard, R. (2016). Nanotechnology Policy: an Experience from I. R. Iran. In The Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Making: Its Trends and Objectives in the Developing Countries. NAM S&T Centre, New Delhi. pp. 33-40.