تحول تاریخی مفهوم و سنجش پیشرفت علمی: دلالت‌هایی برای بازنگری نظام ارزیابی علم در ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

عضو هیئت علمی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

10.22034/jstp.2026.12372.2068

چکیده

این پژوهش به این پرسش پاسخ می‌دهد که مفهوم و سنجش پیشرفت علمی طی نیم‌قرن گذشته چگونه تحول یافته است و این تحول چه دلالت‌هایی برای بازنگری نظام ارزیابی علم در ایران دارد. روش پژوهش تاریخی ـ تحلیلی و چندمنبعی است و مرور ساختاریافته ادبیات، شواهد مکمل کتاب‌سنجی، تحلیل اسناد سیاستی و مقایسه هنجاری را تلفیق می‌کند.جست‌وجوی اسکوپوس در ۱۱ اوت ۲۰۲۶، با پوشش مدارک مرتبط از سال ۱۹۶۴، پس از اعمال محدودیت‌ها و غربالگری عنوان و چکیده، به مجموعه‌ای شامل ۱۸۸۳ مدرک انجامید. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند تحول ارزیابی علم، حاصل تعامل معیارهای معرفتی، سازمان اجتماعی علم، ابزارهای سنجش و انتظارات سیاستی است که در سال‌های اخیر،  لایه‌های جدید کیفیت، اثرگذاری و مسئولیت به معیارهای پیشین افزوده شده‌اند. در ایران نیز اهداف برنامه‌های توسعه از ظرفیت‌سازی و تولید علمی به نوآوری و مسئله‌محوری گسترش یافته، اما سنجش رسمی همچنان عمدتاً کمّی و رتبه‌محور است. این ناهم‌زمانی به‌صورت «شکاف مفهوم ـ سنجش» صورت‌بندی می‌شود. تفاوت تحقق شاخص‌های مالی و برخی بروندادها نیز ضرورت تفکیک منابع، ظرفیت، کیفیت و اثر را نشان می‌دهد.همچنین مقایسه هنجاری، ظرفیت‌هایی را برای پشتیبانی بومی از اصلاح ارزیابی آشکار می‌کند. دلالت سیاستی پژوهش، طراحی چارچوبی شش‌بعدی با ترکیب پایش کمّی، داوری کیفیت و اثر، و تعدیل زمینه‌ای و اخلاقی است که اجرای آزمایشی و اعتبارسنجی تجربی آن نیز پیشنهاد می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Historical Evolution of the Concept and Measurement of Scientific Progress: Implications for Reforming Science Assessment in Iran

نویسنده [English]

  • سید حبیب الله طباطبائیان
Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

This study examines how the concept and measurement of scientific progress have evolved over the past half-century and what this evolution implies for reforming science assessment in Iran. It adopts a historical-analytical, multi-source approach combining a structured literature review, complementary bibliometric evidence, policy-document analysis, and normative comparison. A Scopus search conducted on 11 August 2026, covering relevant records from 1964 onward, yielded 1,883 documents after filtering and single-reviewer title and abstract screening. The findings indicate that science assessment evolves through interactions among epistemic criteria, the social organization of science, measurement tools, and policy expectations. More recently, quality, impact, and responsibility have been added to earlier criteria. In Iran, development-plan objectives have expanded from capacity building and scientific production toward innovation and problem orientation, while official measurement remains predominantly quantitative and ranking-based. This mismatch is conceptualized as a concept–measurement gap. Differences between the attainment of financial indicators and selected outputs further underscore the need to distinguish resources, capacity, quality, and impact. Normative comparison also identifies domestic foundations that may support assessment reform. The study proposes a six-dimensional framework combining quantitative monitoring, qualitative judgment of quality and impact, and contextual and ethical adjustment. Pilot implementation and empirical validation of this framework are recommended

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Scientific Progress
  • Science Measurement
  • Research Assessment
  • Science And Technology Policy
  • Responsible Research Assessment
[1] Godin, B. (2002). Outline for a History of Science Measurement. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700101
[2] Godin, B. (2007). Science, Accounting and Statistics: The Input–Output Framework. Research Policy, 36(9), 1388–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.06.002
[3] American Society for Cell Biology. (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). American Society for Cell Biology. https://sfdora.org/read/
[4] Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. https://coara.eu/agreement/the-agreement-full-text/
[5] Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
[6] Ghazinoory, S., Ghazinoori, S., & Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2011). Iranian Academia: Evolution After Revolution And Plagiarism as A Disorder. Science and engineering ethics, 17(2), 213-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9206-6
[7] Nasr, S. H. (1968). Science and Civilization in Islam. Harvard University Press.
[8] Ragep, F. J. (2001). Freeing Astronomy from Philosophy: An Aspect of Islamic Influence on Science. Osiris, 16, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/649338
[9] Strobino, R. (2018). Ibn Sina’s Logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-sina-logic/
[10] Janavi, E., Moradi, S., & Pakzad, M. (2020). Assessment Of Iran's Scientific Publications Based On National Master Plan For Science And Education. Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(1, spring & summer)), 213-236.
[11] Farazkish, M. (2016). Designing an Evaluation Model for Science, Technology and Innovation Process of Iranian Governmental Organizations (Doctoral dissertation, PhD dissertation). Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University.
[12] Soofi, A. S., & Ghazinoory, S. (2011). The Network of The Iranian Techno-Economic System. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4), 591-609.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.11.005
[13] Carnap, R. (1937). The Logical Syntax of Language (A. Smeaton, Trans.). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
[14] Comte, A. (1975). Cours de Philosophie Positive (Vols. 1–2). Hermann. (Original work published 1830–1842).
[15] Neurath, O. (1944). Foundations of the Social Sciences. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap, & C. Morris (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Vol. 2, No. 1). University of Chicago Press.
[16] Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.
[17] Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001
[18] Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123
[19] Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.
[20] Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541391
[21] Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413845
[22] Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Sage.
[23] Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
[24] Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt.
[25] James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longmans, Green and Co.
[26] Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
[27] Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: Challenges and Opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034
[28] Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195076165.001.0001
[29] Souzanchi Kashani, E. (2019). A Historical Review of Science, Technology and Innovation Studies and the Role of the State. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 1–16. https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13682.html {In Persian}
[30] Miremadi, S. I. (2019). National Innovation System and Its Role in Improving Science, Technology and Innovation Policies. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 135–154. https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13691.html {In Persian}
[31] Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (2003). Report on the Evaluation of Science and Technology in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Session 528; Registration No. 5124/DSh). Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. {In Persian}
[32] World Bank. (n.d.). Research and Development Expenditure (% of GDP) – Iran, Islamic Rep. [Data set; indicator GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locations=IR
[33] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2016). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Review: Islamic Republic of Iran. United Nations.
[34] Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education. (n.d.). Designing an Indicator-Based Evaluation System for Research, Technology and Innovation in the Seventh Development Plan (Summary of Sixth Plan Indicator Performance, pp. 25–26). Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. {In Persian}
[35] Hosseinzadeh Lanjabadi, T., & Hosseini, S. J. (2022). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Sixth Development Plan Law and the Law on Permanent Provisions of National Development Plans (Report No. 18309). Islamic Parliament Research Center. {In Persian}
[36] Student Affairs Organization. (n.d.). Iran’s Higher Education Position and Indicators of Scientific Output and H-Index in 2021. Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. {In Persian}
[37] Nasiri, H., & Ghanbarpour, M. (2025). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Seventh Progress Plan Through September 2025: Chapter 20, Improvement of the Science, Technology and Research System (Higher Education and Research). Monthly Expert Reports of the Islamic Parliament Research Center, 33(7), Report 21062. https://doi.org/10.22034/report.mrc.2025.1404.33.7.21062 {In Persian}
[38] Druart, T.-A. (2016). Al-Farabi. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-farabi/
[39] Gutas, D. (2016). Ibn Sina [Avicenna]. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-sina/
[40] Irwin, R. (2018). Ibn Khaldun: An Intellectual Biography. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/9781400889549