Methodological Foundations in Comparative Studies of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Technology Management, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant professor, Faculty of Management, Economics and Progress Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The comparative study is considered as one of the most common and widely used methods in social science research, and the adoption of this research method has been growing in recent years. On the other hand, science, technology, and innovation policy-making in different countries (both developed and developing countries) have faced a lot of dynamics. This has prompted policy researchers to adopt a comparative approach, while examining successful and unsuccessful international experiences, to provide recommendations for better formulation of national policies. But this question is raised, what are the foundations and principles of comparative studies, and to what extent have they been complied with in science, technology, and innovation policy studies in Iran? In this research, by using related keywords and searching in selected scientific journals, we evaluated 82 Persian language comparative research related to science, technology and innovation policy. In general, comparative studies are based on four main foundations, including sampling considerations, construct equivalence, analysis approach (variable or case orientation), and issues of causality. Our findings show that most of the evaluated works were not faithful to the main foundations of comparative studies, the main reason for which is often the researchers' lack of familiarity and sufficient mastery of the methodological issues of comparative studies. As a result, considering the importance of the findings of this type of research for policymakers, failure to observe its principles on behalf of researchers can cause problems in the design and implementation of policies.

Keywords

References

[1] Arani, M. (2015). Comparative studies in education: application of new research methods. Family and research scientific-research quarterly. 12 (2): 69-89. DOR: 20.1001.1.26766728.1394.12.2.4.3. {In Persian}.
[2] Strossa, P. (2022). What is the Real Threat of Information Explosion?. Acta Informatica Pragensia, 11(3).‏ DOI: 10.18267/j.aip.18.
[3] Crowley, K. (2021). Fighting the future: The politics of climate policy failure in Australia (2015–2020). Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(5), e725. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.725.
[4] Rees, R., & Oliver, S. (2012). Stakeholder involvement. Gough, D, Oliver, S, Thomas, J, Introduction to systematic reviews, London: Sage. DOI: ‏ 10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7.
[5] Shimada, K. (2014). Customer value creation in the information explosion era. In 2014 Symposium on VLSI Technology (VLSI-Technology): Digest of Technical Papers (pp. 1-5). IEEE.‏ DOI: 10.1109/VLSIT.2014.6894340.
[6] Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, (13), 74-83. ‏DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002.
[7] Ghazinoory, S. and Ghazinoori S., Extracting Strategies for Modification of the National Innovation System of Iran Based on a Comparative Study . Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2008. 1 (1): 53-64. {In Persian}.
[8] Reeves, B., Ram, N., Robinson, T. N., Cummings, J. J., Giles, C. L., Pan, J., ... & Yeykelis, L. (2021). Screenomics: A framework to capture and analyze personal life experiences and the ways that technology shapes them. Human–Computer Interaction, 36(2), 150-201.‏ DOI: 10.1080/07370024.2019.1578652.
[9]  Xiwei, Z., & Xiangdong, Y. (2007). Science and technology policy reform and its impact on China's national innovation system. Technology in society, 29(3), 317-325.‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.04.008.
[10] Mashayekh, J., Mohseni, M., & Parsa, M. (2016). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Making in Developing Countries: The Case of Islamic Republic of Iran. Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Making: Its Trends and Objectives in the Developing Countries. Daya Publishing House.
[11] Niosi, J. (2010). Rethinking science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions in developing countries. Innovation, 12(3), 250-268.‏ DOI: 10.5172/impp.12.3.250.
[12] Vu, K. M., & Asongu, S. (2020). Backwardness advantage and economic growth in the information age: A cross-country empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 159, 120197. DOI: ‏ 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120197.
[13] Shkarlet, S., Oliychenko, I., Dubyna, M., Ditkovska, M., & Zhovtok, V. (2020). Comparative analysis of best practices in e-Government implementation and use of this experience by developing countries. Administratie si Management Public, (34), 118-136. DOI: 10.24818/amp/2020.34-07
[14] Ghaffari, G. (2011). The logic of comparative research. Iranian Journal of Social Studies. 3 (4): 92-76. DOR: 20.1001.1.20083653.1388.3.4.5.2. {In Persian}.
[15] Mills, M., Van de Bunt, G. G., & De Bruijn, J. (2006). Comparative research: Persistent problems and promising solutions. International sociology, 21(5), 619-631.‏ DOI: 10.1177/0268580906067833.
[16] Smelser, N. J. (2003). On comparative analysis, interdisciplinarity and internationalization in sociology. International sociology, 18(4), 643-657. DOI: 10.1177/0268580903184001.
[17] Lasswell, H. D. (1968). The future of the comparative method. Comparative Politics, 1(1), 3-18.‏ DOI:   10.2307/421372.
[18] Lijphart, A. (1975). II. The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative political studies, 8(2), 158-177.‏ DOI: 10.1177/001041407500800203.
[19] Esser, F., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparative research methods. The international encyclopedia of communication research methods, 1-22. DOI: 10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0035.
[20] George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press. ‏ISBN: 9780262572224.
[21] Verba, S. (1967). Some Dilemmas in Comparative Research. World Politics, 20(1), 111-127. DOI: 10.2307/2009730.
[22] Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research policy, 12(2), 61-90.‏ DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(83)90005-7.
[23] Jowell, R. (1998). How comparative is comparative research?. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(2), 168-177.‏ DOI: 10.1177/0002764298042002004.
[24] Gordon, R. J. (2016). The rise and fall of American growth. In The Rise and Fall of American Growth. Princeton University Press. DOI: ‏ 10.1515/9781400873302.
[25] Ebbinghaus, B. (2005). When less is more: Selection problems in large-N and small-N cross-national comparisons. International sociology, 20(2), 133-152.‏
[26] Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American journal of Sociology, 91(6), 1309-1335.‏ DOI: 10.1086/228423.
Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Volume 15, Issue 2
September 2022
Pages 93-108

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics