الگوی سنجش سطح آمادگی کاربردپذیری پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه پژوهشی مدیریت، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه پژوهشی مدیریت، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش با دغدغه قابل تأملِ ایجاد رابطه اثربخش میان پژوهش با نیازهای جامعه و صنعت در حوزه‌ علوم انسانی و اجتماعی انجام شد. هدف پژوهش توسعه الگویی برای سنجش سطح آمادگی پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی جهت کاربردی شدن است و منطق آن ملهم از مفهوم شناخته شده سطح آمادگی فناوری است. گردآوری داده‌ها از طریق مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساخت یافته با 27 نفر از رؤسای دانشگاه‌ها، پژوهشگاه‌ها، متخصصان و سیاستگذاران حوزه علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری انجام شد. گردآوری داده‌ها تا حد اشباع نظری ادامه یافت و تحلیل داده‌ها به روش تحلیل تم انجام شد. از میان رویکردهای چهارگانه مطرح شده در قالب نسبتِ پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی با مفهوم سطح آمادگی فناوری، رویکرد چهارم یعنی رویکرد جایگزینی مدنظر قرار گرفت. بر این اساس، به جای سطوح 9‌گانه آمادگی فناوری که سطح بلوغ یک فناوری برای ورود به عرصه کاربرد را نشان می‌دهند، دو معیار توانمندسازی و نتایج به عنوان تم‌های اصلی جایگزین شدند. بر اساس الگوی توسعه‌یافته، آموزش، پژوهش، اشاعه و ترویج به عنوان توانمندسازها و نتایج اقتصادی، اجتماعی- فرهنگی و حاکمیتی به مثابه نتایج در نظر گرفته شدند. بر اساس دیدگاه سیستمی این الگو، توانمندسازها می‌توانند از طریق بهبود فرایندها و ظرفیت‏ها، به طور ضمنی زمینه‏ساز تحقق دستاوردها و نتایج کاربردی پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی باشند..

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Model to Measure the Applicability Readiness Level of Humanities and Social Sciences Research

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elham Ebrahimi 1
  • Farzane Mirshahvelayati 2
1 Associate Professor, Management Department, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
2 Assistant Professor, Management Department, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
چکیده [English]

This research was carried out with the serious concern of creating an effective relationship between research and the needs of society and industry in the field of humanities and social sciences. The research aims to develop a model to measure the readiness level of humanities and social science research to be applied. The logic of this model is inspired by the well-known Technology Readiness Level (TRL) concept. Data collection was done through semi-structured interviews with 27 deans of universities and research institutes, experts, and policymakers in the field of science, research and technology. The data collection process continued until reaching theoretical saturation and data analysis was done by thematic analysis method. Among the four approaches proposed in the field of relationship between humanities and social science research with the concept of technology readiness level, (TRL), the fourth approach, i.e., the replacement approach, was considered. Further, instead of Technology Readiness levels that show the maturity level of a technology to enter the field of application, two criteria of enablers and results were replaced as the main themes of the model. Based on the developed model, education, research, dissemination, and promotion were considered enablers; and economic, socio-cultural and governance results were considered as results. Based on the system view of this model, enablers of humanities and social science research can implicitly be the foundation for the realization of practical achievements and results of humanities and social science research through improving processes and capacities.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Technology Readiness Level
  • humanities and social sciences
  • applicability
  • enablers
  • results
  • Applicability Readiness Level

مراجع

Castillo-Vergara, M., & Bent Hansen, P. (2021). Systematic Review of The Literature on The Concept of Civil Society in The Quadruple Helix Framework. Journal of technology management & innovation, 16(4), 85-95. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242021000400085
[2] Regulations on Promotions of Faculty Members in Universities and Institutions of Higher Education (2021), Ministy of Scince, Research and Technology. Available at: http://www.momayeze.ir/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Aeen-Ertegha.pdf {In Persian}.
[3] van den Akker, W. (2016). Yes, we should; research assessment in the humanities. Research assessment in the Humanities: Towards criteria and procedures, NY: Springer. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_3
[4] Gogolin, I. (2016). European educational research quality indicators (EERQI): An experiment. Research assessment in the humanities: Towards criteria and procedures, 103-111. NY: Springer Cham. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_9
[5] Ochsner, Michael; Hug, Sven E., Daniel, Hans-dieter (2016), Research Assessment in the Humanities: Toward Criteria and Procedures, NY: Springer Cham. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4
[6] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en
[7] Leydesdorff, L., Hammarfelt, B., & Salah, A. (2011). The structure of arts and humanities citation index: A mapping on the basis of aggregated citations among 1157 journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2414–2426. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21636
[8] National Organization of Educational Testing Report (2021). Available from: http://www7.sanjesh.org/download/sarasari/cs99/samanreshteh-1399_V2_new.pdf {In Persian}.
[9] Lee, T. S., & Thomas, L. D. (2001). Cost growth models for NASA’s programs: A summary. Computing Science and Statistics. 33, 431-440.
[10] Sauser, B., Verma, D., Ramirez-Marquez, J., & Gove, R. (2006). From TRL to SRL: The concept of systems readiness levels. In Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Los Angeles, CA (pp. 1-10).
[11] Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2649146
[12] Mora, J.-G. (2001). Governance and management in the new university. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 95–110. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101133801608
[13] Rolfe, G. (2013). The university in dissent. Scholarship in the corporate university. Abingdon: Routledge. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203084281
[14] Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 476–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22
[15] Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2013). Types of research output profiles: A multilevel latent class analysis of the Austrian Science Fund’s final project report data. Research Evaluation, 22(2), 118–133. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs038
[16] Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2
[17] Ebrahimi, Elham (2022). Application of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, Approaches and Solutions, Tehran: Publications of Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. {In Persian}.
[18] The British Council Report (2018). ANNEX 2 Technology Readiness Level,  https://www.britishcouncil.id/sites/default/files/annex_2_technology_readiness_level_trl_033020_final.pdf
[19] Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Report (2018). ESRC research helping industry, https://www.ninedtp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Annex-2-Social-science-role-in-ISCF_FINAL-2.pdf
[20] Bruno, I., Lobo, G., Covino, B. V., Donarelli, A., Marchetti, V., Panni, A. S., & Molinari, F. (2020, September). Technology readiness revisited: a proposal for extending the scope of impact assessment of European public services. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 369-380). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428552
[21] Levitt, R; Celia, C; Diepeveen, S; Chonaill, S; Rabinovich, L; Tiessen, J (2010) Assessing the impact of arts and humanities research at the University of Cambridge, RAND, https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR816.html
[22] Holzer, B. J. (2009). HERA: Lessons learned from the HERA upgrade. Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA) Available online at:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1204549/files/p30.pdf
[23] Arts and Humanities Research Council (2006) AHRC Impact Strategy Summary. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/231616/1426.pdf
[24] Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009) Research Excellence Framework. Second Consultation on the Assessment and Funding of Research. Available online at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9288/1/09_38.pdf
[25] Walker, B. L., & Unruh, H. E. (2017). Funding your research in the humanities and social sciences: A practical guide to grant and fellowship proposals. NY: Routledge. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315159034
[26] Hassani, H., Turajlić, E., & Taljanović, K. (2019). Digital Humanities Readiness Assessment Framework: DHuRAF. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06532. doi:
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.06532
[27] Ghanei Rad, M. A., Mahmoodi, M., & Ebrahim Abadi, H. (2017). Compilation of Multidimensional Model for Evaluation of Humanities and Social Science’ Development. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 10(1), 85-103. Doi: 10.22034/jstp.2017.9.1.180200{In Persian}.
[28] Qanadinejad, F. (2019), Evaluation of research in humanities: criteria and methods, Rehiyaft, 72, 105-108. Doi: 10.22070/RSCI.2020.13384.1450 {In Persian}.
[29] Tayefehbagher, D., Abazari, Z., Moradi, S., & Babalhavaeji, F. (2022). A Model for Evaluating the Impact of Humanities Research in Iran, Scientometrics Research Journal, 8(15),1-34. Doi:  10.22070/RSCI.2020.13384.1450 {In Persian}.
[30] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[31] Beheshti, B., Safaei Movahed, S., & Bagheri, K. (2021). Inefficiency of Humanities in Iranian Universities, Based on Students' Lived Experience; A Phenomenological Research, Journal of Science & Technology Policy. 14(2), 67-80. Doi: 10.22034/JSTP.2021.14.2.1349 {In Persian}.
 
 

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار