روندهای نوآیند در سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری‌های نوین، سازمان پژوهش‌های علمی و صنعتی ایران، تهران

چکیده

در سال‌های اخیر، اجماعی شکل گرفته مبنی بر اینکه روندهای نوینی در سیاست‌های نوآوری از منظر تبیینی و تجویزی در حال بروز هستند که به مراتب از انگاره‌های نظری رایج و غالب نئوکلاسیک و تکاملی‌ پیچیده‌تر می‌باشند. مقاله حاضر ضمن مرور پیشینه نظریه‌های سیاست‌های نوآوری، شاخص‌ترین روندهای نوین را معرفی و به طور مشخص به روندی از سیاست‌های نوآوری می‌پردازد که برای تخفیف چالش‌های محیط زیستی ظهور کرده است. در مقایسه تطبیقی که بین این روند و مکاتب قبلی سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری انجام می‌گیرد وجه تمایز آنها با رویکردهای غالب قبلی مشخص و در ادامه نیز چارچوب نظری و عملی آن از نظر خردمایه سیاستی، لایه‌های حکمرانی، بازیگران و کنش سیاستی توضیح داده می‌شود. در پایان، مقاله معضل سیاست‌گذاری آب در ایران را بررسی و آن را با استفاده از این چارچوب به عنوان یک مورد مطالعاتی تحلیل می‌کند. مقاله به این نتیجه رسیده که تحلیل سیاست‌های آب در ایران در چارچوب نظریه‌های نئوکلاسیک و تکاملی که به منظور افزایش رشد اقتصادی به طراحی سیاست‌های نوآوری می‌پردازند قابل انجام نبوده و تنها در چارچوب روند جدید تحلیل سیاست و با استفاده از خردمایه شکست گذار با زیرمجموعه‌های شکست جهت‌گیری، شکست تقاضا، شکست هماهنگی و شکست تفکر بازاندیشانه و انتقادی، می‌توان به تحلیل آن پرداخت.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Emerging Trends of STI Policy

نویسنده [English]

  • Tahereh Miremadi
Associated Professor of IROST, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In the recent years, there have been a consensus formed over the new trends of innovation policy in the making which are more complex and extensive compared to neo-classic and evolutionary schools. This paper aims to review some of these trends in the context of STI policy theories, and more specifically, to focus on one of them which is set to bring forth new theoretical paradigm to meet environmental challenges. In a comparative studies, the common and distinct characteristics of the new paradigm are pointed out and then, the paper proceeds to explain its policy rationale, governance layers, actors and policy actions. And finally, it conducts the application of this framework on the case of study of water policy in Iran. The paper concludes the neoclassic and evolutionary paradigms designing STI policy with the aim of economic growth cannot be suitable for the framework by which the water policy analysis and the water policy needs the new paradigm of transition failure within which the directionality, demand, coordination and reflexive failure are the rationales for policy making.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Environmental Challenge
  • Transition Management
  • Multi-Level Perspective
  • Directionality Failure
  • Demand Failure
  • Coordination Failure
  • Reflexive Failure
[1] Borrás, S. (2008). The widening and deepening of innovation policy: what conditions provide for effective governance?. Georgia Institute of Technology.

[2] Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?. Research policy, 41(10), 1697-1702.

[3] Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815.

[4] Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567.

[5] Gallouj, F., & Djellal, F. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of innovation and services: a multi-disciplinary perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[6] Szymańska, E. (2017). User-Driven Innovation–the concept and research results. Procedia Engineering, 182, 694-700.

[7] Agnete Alsos, G., Ljunggren, E., & Hytti, U. (2013). Gender and innovation: state of the art and a research agenda. International Journal of gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 236-256.

[8] Cozzens, S. E., Kaplinsky, R., Lundvall, B., Joseph, K., Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (2009). Innovation, poverty and inequality. Cause, coincidence, or co-evolution. Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting, 57-82.

[9] Genus, A., & Iskandarova, M. (2018). Responsible innovation: Its institutionalisation and a critique. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 1-9.

[10] Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and public policy, 45(4), 448-454.

[11] Miremadi, T.(2018). Growing Interdisciplinarity: An Overview of the Evolution of the Field of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Research. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 10(1),1-25.{In Persian}.

[12] Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological economics, 32(2), 319-332.

[13] Miremadi T. (2019), Evaluation of Innovation Policy from the perspective of environmental challenge, Theory and Practice, Tehran, IROST. {In Persian}.

[14] Miremadi, T., & Rahimirard, Z. (1395). Identification of System Failures in the Analysis of the Biofuel Technological Innovative System in Iran. Science and Technology Policy, 8 (1), 27-41. {In Persian}.

[15] Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. foresight, 3(1), 15-31.

[16] Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research policy, 36(3), 399-417.

[17] Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology analysis & strategic management, 20(5), 537-554.

[18] Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40.

[19] Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619.

[20] Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047.

[21] Boon, W., & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435-447.

[22] Guyer, P., & Wood, A. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. New York, NY: Cambridge.

[23] Habermas, J. (2018). Inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. John Wiley & Sons.

[24] Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology analysis & strategic management, 17(4), 445-476.

[25] Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880-894.

[26] Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 78-91.

[27] Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42(3), 237-246.

[28] Voß, J. P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy sciences, 42(4), 275-302.

[29] Beck, U. (2018). The reinvention of politics: Rethinking modernity in the global social order. John Wiley & Sons.

[30] Giddens, A. (2013). The consequences of modernity. John Wiley & Sons.

[31] Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 204-216.

[32] Ahlborg, H. (2017). Towards a conceptualization of power in energy transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 25, 122-141.

[33] Miremadi, T. (2012). The vicious circles of underdevelopment and their impacts on the national innovation system in Iran, Journal of science and technology policy, 5 (1); 17 – 30.{In Persian}.

[34] Miremadi T. (2018), Critical Future Studies of Water Policy in Iran, Public Policy 3 (4); 105 -124.{In Persian}.

[35] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Trade and Markets Division. (2016 (. Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[36] Madani, K., AghaKouchak, A., & Mirchi, A. (2016). Iran’s socio-economic drought: challenges of a water-bankrupt nation. Iranian Studies, 49(6), 997-1016.

[37] https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/841403 [38] Charkhestani, A., Salehi Ziri, M., & Amini Rad, H. (2016). Wastewater reuse: potential for expanding Iran's water supply to survive from absolute scarcity in future. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 6(3), 437-444.

[39] Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge University Press.

[40] Miremadi, T. (2011). Defining thec comprehensive concept of Security in Iran, The report of the research, monograph, Tehran, Iranian research organization for science and technology. {In Persian}.


 


دوره 12، شماره 2
تابستان 1398
صفحه 619-633