انتخاب و بکارگیری شاخص‌های ارزیابی علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر پسادکتری سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

2 عضو هیأت‌علمی پژوهشگاه ارتباطات و فناوری اطلاعات، تهران

چکیده

طی دهه‌های اخیر، با ظهور اقتصادهای دانش‌بنیان، اهمیت علم، فناوری و نوآوری (STI) در توسعه کشورهای مختلف افزون شده و با توجه به ماهیت این حوزه، ارزیابی عملکرد و تخصیص بودجه در توسعه STI از طرف دولت‌ها ضروری تشخیص داده شده است. در این مقاله، مبانی و مدل‌های ارزیابی STI معرفی و بر اساس تلفیق مدل‌های ارزیابی عملکردمحور و ذینفعان کلیدی، مدل جدیدی برای ارزیابی STI به کار گرفته شده است. مجموعه شاخص‌های درون‌دادی، برون‌دادی، پیامدی و اثرگذاری مدل به تفکیک پنج حوزه تخصصی علوم (طبیعی، مهندسی، انسانی، اجتماعی و سلامت) تدوین و ارزیابی عملکرد برای چهار گروه ذینفعان اصلی مشتمل بر سیاست‌گذاران، پژوهشگران و فناوران، بهره‌برداران صنعتی و عموم مردم، به ترتیب در قالب سنجش تناسب، کارایی، اثربخشی و سودمندی، امکان‌پذیر می‌شود. نتایج نهایی نیز به صورت نمودار راداری در سطح ارزیابی مورد نظر نمایش داده می‌شود که در بخش پایانی مقاله نمونه‌ای از آن برای ارزیابی عملکرد پژوهشی دانشگاه‌ها و پژوهشگاه‌ها ارائه شده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Selecting and Applying Science, Technology and Innovation Evaluation Indices

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdieh Farazkish 1
  • Nasrin Dastranj 2
1 Postdoctoral Researcher of Science and Technology Policy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Research Institute for Information and Communication Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Recently, with the advent of knowledge-based economies, the importance of science, technology and innovation (STI) have grown in different countries development. Therefore, the performance evaluation of STI activities recognized as a necessity. In this paper, the STI evaluation concepts and models introduce and a new evaluation model has been proposed based on the integration of performance-based and key stakeholders-based evaluation approaches.
The pool of input, output, outcome and impact indicators have classified into five specialized fields including natural sciences, engineering sciences, human sciences, social sciences, and health sciences. Then, performance evaluation is feasible in terms of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and usefulness for the four main stakeholders including policymakers, researchers and technicians, industrial beneficiaries, and the public. The final results presented in the form of a radar chart which we showed one sample performance evaluation of universities and research institutes.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Science
  • Technology and Innovation Evaluation
  • Evaluation Indicators
  • Performance Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutions
 

[1] Hansson, F. (2006). Organizational use of evaluations governance and control in research evaluation. Evaluation, 12(2), 159-178.

[2] Frederiksen, L. F., Hansson, F., & Wenneberg, S. B. (2003). The Agora and the role of research evaluation. Evaluation, 9(2), 149-172.

[3] Ghazinoory, S., Farazkish, M., Montazer, G. A., & Soltani, B. (2017). Designing a national science and technology evaluation system based on a new typology of international practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 122, 119-127.

[4] Godin, B. (2004). Measurement and Statistics on Science and Technology: 1920 to the Present. Routledge.

[5] UNESCO. (2010). UNESCO Science Report: The Current Status of Science around the World. Paris.

[6] Aitsi-Selmi, A., Murray, V., Wannous, C., Dickinson, C., Johnston, D., Kawasaki, A., ... & Yeung, T. (2016). Reflections on a science and technology agenda for 21st century disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(1), 1-29.

[7] Molas-Gallart, J. (2012). Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative study. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(4), 583-598.

[8] Barker, K. (2007). The UK Research Assessment Exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 3-12.

[9] Chelimsky, E. (2006). The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society. The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation, 33-55.

[10] Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2007). Research evaluation in transition. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences (pp. 205-223). Springer Netherlands.

[11] Coryn, C. L., Hattie, J. A., Scriven, M., & Hartmann, D. J. (2007). Models and mechanisms for evaluating government-funded research: An international comparison. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 437-457.

[12] Bazargan Harandi, A. (2004). Validation in Higher Education. Encyclopedia of Higher Education, 1(1), 163-166. {In Persian}.

[13] Hansson, F. (2003). How to evaluate and select new scientific knowledge?. Vest. a Journal for Science and Technology Studies.

[14] Hansen, H. F. (2009). Research Evaluation: Methods, Practice, and Experience. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.

[15] Hansen, H. F. (2005). Choosing evaluation models A discussion on evaluation design. Evaluation, 11(4), 447-462.

[16] Rossi, P. H., Lipsey M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

[17] Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[18] Jørgensen, T. B. (2003). ‘Værdier i harmoni, konflikt og forandring’. In Jørgensen, T. B. (ed.), På sporet af en offentlig identitet, pp. 63-80. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

[19] Stame, N. (2004). Theory-Based Evaluation and Varieties of Complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58-76.

[20] Karimi, T. (2005). New Models of Organizational Performance Evaluation. Tadbir, 17(171), 22-27. {In Persian}.

[21] Amiran, H. (2003). Performance Evaluation: Dos and Don'ts. Tadbir, 14(136), 77-80. {In Persian}.

[22] Brown, M. G., & Svenson, R. A. (1998). RTM Classic: Measuring R&D Productivity. Research-Technology Management, 41(6), 30-35.

[23] European Commission. (2014). Indicators for monitoring and evaluation: a practical guide.

[24] Ghazinoory, S., & Farazkish, M. (2018). A modal for STI national evaluation based efficiency, effectiveness and Utility index. Strategic Studies of public policy, 8(27), 205-229. {In Persian}.

[25] Farazkish, M. (2017). Designing an evaluation model of science, technology and innovation process for Iranian government organizations. Ph.D. thesis in science and technology policy, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modarres University. {In Persian}.

[26] Nowruzi Chakly, A., Ghazavi, R., & Taheri, B. (2015). Valuation of research indicators for different fields of science in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 7(4), 31-40. {In Persian}.

[27] The World Bank. (2004). World Development Indicators. Retrieved May 2012, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator.

[28] Ghazinoory, S., & Farazkish, M. (2017). Innovation process evaluation of national organizations with an integrated approach. Collections of papers and negotiations. Tehran: Academy of sciences. pp. 128-137. {In Persian}.

[29] Ghanei Rad, M. A., Mahmoudi, M., & Ebrahim Abadi, H. (2018). A multi-dimensional model of humanities development evaluation. Collections of papers and negotiations. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(1), 85-103. {In Persian}.

[30] Chien, C. F., Chen, C. P., & Chen, C. H. (2009). Designing performance indices and a novel mechanism for evaluating government R&D projects. Journal of Quality, 16(2), 119.

[31] Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J., Tübke, A., & Zinöcker, K. (2002). RTD Evaluation Tool Box: Assessing the Socio-economic Impact of RTD Policies. IPTS Technical Report Series. Seville.

[32] Street, D. (2009). Developing key performance indicators for humanities. Royal Irish Academy.

[33] Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2013). Quality Indicators in the Social Sciences.

[34] European Commission. (2003). Third report on scientific and technological indicators 2003. Office for official publications of the European communities.

[35] Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., & Rolland, C. (2006). Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requirements Engineering, 11(1), 102-107.

[36] CCA (Council of Canadian Academies). (2012). Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment (The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding).

[37] CCA (Council of Canadian Academies). (2012). The State of Science and Technology in Canada 2012 (The Expert Panel on the State of Science and Technology in Canada).

[38] Ochester, M. (2012). Indicators for Research Quality for Evaluation of Humanities Research: Opportunities and Limitations. BAND (1).

[39] Marjanovic, S., Hanney, S., & Wooding, S. (2009). A Historical Reflection on Research Evaluation Studies, Their Recurrent Themes and Challenges. Technical Report. RAND Corporation.

[40] NHMRC. (2013). National Health and Medical Research Council Submission to the Productivity Commission’s Research Study on Public Support for Science and Innovation in Australia.