چارچوب «پژوهش پاسخ سریع» در مؤسسات پژوهشی دولتی؛ رویکردی خبره‌محور

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر گروه سیاست نوآوری و آینده‌پژوهی، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران.

2 پژوهشگر گروه سیاست نوآوری و آینده‌پژوهی، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار گروه سیاست نوآوری و آینده‌پژوهی، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

همکاری بین سیاست‌گذاران و پژوهشگران، همواره با یک چالش اصلی روبروست: پژوهش‌های باکیفیت، زمان‌بر هستند، درحالی‌که سیاست‌گذاران به یافتن پاسخ سؤالات، در کوتاه‌ترین زمان ممکن نیاز دارند. به عبارت دیگر، در اکثر مواقع سیاست‌گذاران نمی‌توانند منتظر دریافت بهترین شواهد و یافته‌های پژوهشی برای تصمیم‌گیری باشند. ‌از این رو مسئولیت کلیدی پژوهشگران این است که نیاز سیاست‌گذاران را با مجموعه‌ای از شواهد تحقیقاتی به سرعت پاسخ دهند. مؤسسات پژوهشی دولتی، علاوه بر مأموریتی که در گسترش دانش از طریق پژوهش عمیق بر عهده دارند، به دلیل نقش خود در کمک به تصمیم‌سازی، لازم است بتوانند نیازهای پژوهشی فوری سیاست‌گذاران را برای اخذ تصمیمات اثربخش و مبتنی بر شواهد علمی، مرتفع کنند. در همین رابطه، «پژوهش‌ پاسخ سریع»، به عنوان راه‌حلی برای تعامل مؤسسات پژوهشی با سیاست‌گذاران و رفع نیاز فوری آن‌ها به پژوهش پیشنهاد شده است. هدف این پژوهش، شناسایی چارچوبی برای انجام پژوهش پاسخ سریع بود و در آن، نتایج مصاحبه با برخی از خبرگان که دارای تجربه در فضای تعامل بین سیاست و پژوهش بوده‌اند، با استفاده از روش کیفی تحلیل مضمون، کدگذاری و تحلیل شد. مؤلفه‌های حاصل در این چارچوب، چیستی یا تدقیق تعریف پژوهش پاسخ سریع؛ چراییِ انجام آن و چگونگی شامل پیش‌نیازها و فرایند بودند. پیش‌نیازهای انجام پژوهش پاسخ سریع، در دو دسته سازمانی و فردی، روشن شدند و فرایند در سه مرحله مسئله‌شناسی، راه‌حل‌یابی و ارائه گزارش به دست آمد. پیگیری برای دستورکارگذاری، چالش‌ها و ملاحظات نیز عوامل اثرگذار دیگری هستند که شناسایی شدند و لازم است در ایفای نقش پژوهش پاسخ سریع، مورد توجه قرار‌گیرند

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

“Rapid Response Research” Framework in Government Research Institutes; An Expert-Based Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Matin Ameri Golestan 1
  • Ali Abdollahi-Nasab 2
  • Mohammad Hosain Shojaei 3
1 Researcher, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
2 Researcher, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Collaboration between policymakers and researchers always faces a major challenge: high-quality research takes time, while policymakers need to find answers to their questions in the shortest possible time. In other words, in most cases, policy makers do not have enough time to receive the best evidence and research findings for decision making. Hence, the key responsibility of researchers is to rapidly respond to the needs of policy makers with a synthesis of research evidence. Government research institutes, in addition to their mission of expanding knowledge through in-depth research, due to their role in helping decision-making, it is necessary to be able to meet the urgent research needs of policy makers to make effective decisions based on scientific evidence. In this regard “Rapid response research” has been proposed as a solution for interaction of research institutes with policy makers and to meet their urgent need for research. The purpose of this research was to identify a framework for conducting rapid response research, and in it, the results of interviews with some experts who had experience in the interaction between policy and research, were coded and analyzed using the qualitative method of thematic analysis. The resulting components in this framework, what is or the clarification of the definition of rapid response research; Why to do it and how to include prerequisites and process. The prerequisites for conducting rapid response research, in two organizational and individual categories, were clarified and the process was achieved in three stages of problem identification, solution finding, and report presentation. Follow-up for agenda setting, challenges and considerations are also other influential factors that were identified and need to be taken into consideration in playing the role of rapid response research.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Rapid Response Research
  • Policy Research Gap
  • Policy Research interaction
  • Evidence Based Decision Making
  • Boundary Organizations

مراجع

 
[1[ Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2015). Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies. Implementation Science, 11(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0472-9.
[2[ Zhang, J., Fedder, B., Wang, D., & Jennerjahn, T. C. (2022). A knowledge exchange framework to connect research, policy, and practice, developed through the example of the Chinese island of Hainan. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 530-541. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.016.
[3[ Mijumbi-Deve, R., Rosenbaum, S. E., Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., & Sewankambo, N. K. (2017). Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda. Health research policy and systems, 15(1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0200-1.
[4[ Kothari, A., MacLean, L., Edwards, N., & Hobbs, A. (2011). Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(3), 203-214. DOI: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.16.
[5[ Weiland, C., Sachs, J., McCormick, M., Hsueh, J., & Snow, C. (2021). Fast-response research to Answer practice and policy questions. The Future of Children, 31(1), 75-96. DOI: 10.1353/foc.2021.0009.
[6[ Fartash, K., & Khayyatian Yazdi, M. S. (2019). The Role Universities and Research Institutes Plays in Science and Technology Development and Policies Supporting Them. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 255-267.{In Persian}. DOR: 20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.17.2.
[7[ Jowkar, T., & Morovati, M. (2016). Triple helix of University-Industry-Government in the Scientific Articles of Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(3), 71-84 {In Persian}. DOR: 20.1001.1.20080840.1395.9.3.7.3.
[8[ Zakery, A., Shamsollahi, M., Ghafarimoghadam, A., & Pishvaee, M. S. (2019). A Decision-making Pattern for University-industry Collaboration Considering the Diversity in Mechanisms and External Players. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(1), 33-50. {In Persian}. DOI: 10.22034/jstp.2019.11.1.2021.
[9[ Ellen, M. E., Panisset, U., de Carvalho, I. A., Goodwin, J., & Beard, J. (2017). A knowledge translation framework on ageing and health. Health Policy, 121(3), 282-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.12.009.
[10[ Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC health services research, 14(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.
[11[ Janousek, C. L., & Blair, R. (2018). Theory–Practice Exchange in Local Government Management: Perspectives of Practitioners and Scholars. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(7), 730-742. DOI: 10.1177/0275074017725597.
[12[ World Health Organization. (2006). Bridging the “know–do” gap meeting on knowledge translation in global health. Geneva: WHO.
[13]  Ellen, M. E., Lavis, J. N., Sharon, A., & Shemer, J. (2014). Health systems and policy research evidence in health policy making in Israel: what are researchers’ practices in transferring knowledge to policy makers? Health research policy and systems, 12(1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-67.
[14[ Mijumbi, R. M., Oxman, A. D., Panisset, U., & Sewankambo, N. K. (2014). Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study. Implementation Science, 9(1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0114-z.
[15[ Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2013). Methods for policy research: Taking socially responsible action (Vol. 3). SAGE publications.
[16[ Shroff, Z., Aulakh, B., Gilson, L., Agyepong, I. A., El-Jardali, F., & Ghaffar, A. (2015). Incorporating research evidence into decision-making processes: researcher and decision-maker perceptions from five low-and middle-income countries. Health research policy and systems, 13(1), 1-14. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-015-0059-y.
[17[ Buick, F., Blackman, D., O'Flynn, J., O'Donnell, M., & West, D. (2016). Effective practitioner–scholar relationships: Lessons from a coproduction partnership. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 35-47. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12481.
[18[ Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., & Brutzman, B. (2022). Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review. Evidence & Policy, 18(1), 7-24. DOI: 10.1332/174426420x16083745764324.
[19[ Allen, S. T., Ruiz, M. S., & O’Rourke, A. (2015). The evidence does not speak for itself: The role of research evidence in shaping policy change for the implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange programs in three US cities. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(7), 688-695. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.04.008.
[20[ Cvitanovic, C., Shellock, R. J., Mackay, M., van Putten, E. I., Karcher, D. B., Dickey-Collas, M., & Ballesteros, M. (2021). Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 123, 179-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.020.
[21[ Norouzi, E., & Tabtabaeian, S. H. (2015). Intermediary Organizations: Definitions, Types and Functions. Rahyaft, 25(60), 1-16. {In Persian}.
[22[ Karcher, D. B., Cvitanovic, C., Colvin, R. M., van Putten, I. E., & Reed, M. S. (2021). Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 125, 202-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.012.
[23[ Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Di Gregorio, M., & Dallimer, M. (2022). How do information flows affect impact from environmental research?-An analysis of a science-policy network. Journal of Environmental Management, 321, 115828. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115828.
[24[ Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A., ... & Berger, E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00169. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3580647.
[25[ Mijumbi-Deve, R., & Sewankambo, N. K. (2017). A process evaluation to assess contextual factors associated with the uptake of a rapid response service to support health systems’ decision-making in Uganda. International journal of health policy and management, 6(10), 561. DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.04.
[26[ Kasonde, J. M., & Campbell, S. (2012). Creating a knowledge translation platform: nine lessons from the Zambia Forum for Health Research. Health research policy and systems, 10(1), 1-8. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-10-31.
[27[ Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, technology, & human values, 26(4), 399-408. DOI: 10.1177/016224390102600401.
[28[ Norouzi, E., Tabatabaeeian, S. H., & Ghazinoori, S. S. (2016). Assessing the effect of intermediary institutions in addressing the weaknesses of the NIS functions of Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(1), 15-26. {In Persian}. DOR: 20.1001.1.20080840.1395.9.1.3.5.
[29[ Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect DARE. American journal of evaluation, 26(1), 12-30. DOI: 10.1177/109821400427333.
[30[ Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. (2003). From knowing to doing: a framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125-148. DOI: 10.1177/1356389003009002.
[31[ Tayebi Abolhasani, A. (2019). Introduction to research methodology: Standard procedures for qualitative data analysis. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 9(2), 67-96. {In Persian}. DOR: 20.1001.1.24767220.1398.09.2.5.1.
[32[ Gaeini, A., & Hosseinzadeh, A. (2012). Three paradigms of positivism, interpretation and hermeneutics in management and organization studies. Cultural strategy, 19, 104-138. {In Persian}.
[33[ McNabb, D. E. (2002). Research methods in Public Administration and non-profit organisations: quantitative and qualitative approaches. {In Persian}.
[34[ Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Sage.
[35[ Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
[36[ Wicks, D. (2017). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Qualitative research in organizations and management. DOI: 10.1108/QROM-08-2016-1408.
[37[ Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
[38[ Danaeifard, H., Alvani, M., & Azar, A. (2004). Qualitative research methodology in management: a comprehensive approach. Tehran: Saffar Ishraqi Publications. {In Persian}.
 
 
 
 
سیاست علم و فناوری
دوره 15، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 56
ویژه نامه نقش و جایگاه مؤسسات پژوهشیِ دولتی در نظام ملّی نوآوری
دی 1401
صفحه 35-51

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار