الگوی کنشگرمحور تحلیل تعارضات بین سازمانی: موردپژوهی وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیارگروه اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار گروه سیاست نوآوری و آینده‌نگاری، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

تحلیل تعارض یکی از محورهای مهم در مطالعات پایداری/تغییر خط‌مشی است. از آنجا که وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری (عتف) یکی از کنشگران اصلی سیاست‌های آموزش، پژوهش و فناوری کشور است، چگونگی ایفای نقش این وزارتخانه در حوزه سیاست‌های علم، فناوری و نوآوری ارتباط وثیقی با پایداری و اثربخشی این سیاست‌ها دارد. پژوهش حاضر در صدد ارائه الگوی تعارضات وزارت عتف با رویکردی کنشگرمحور است. این مطالعه با رویکرد کیفی و به روش تحلیل مضمون انجام شده و داده‌های پژوهش بر مبنای مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختاریافته گردآوری شده است. نتایج نشان‌دهنده شش تعارض کلیدی است که عناوین و طرف‌های آن عبارتند از (1) تعارض حکمرانی کلان با شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی، شورای عالی عتف، شورای فناوری‌ها و تولیدات دانش‌بنیان؛ (2) تفکیک سطوح با وزارت آموزش و پرورش؛ (3) تفکیک رشته‌ها با وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی؛ (4) تفکیک مأموریت‌ها با معاونت علمی و فناوری رئیس‌جمهور؛ (5) تصدی‌گری با دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز پژوهشی دولتی؛ (6) تنظیم‌گری با مؤسسات آموزشی و پژوهشی خصوصی.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

  The Actor-oriented Model of Conflict Analysis: A Case Study of The Ministry of Science, Research and Technology

نویسندگان [English]

  • Meysam Narimani 1
  • Mohammad Hossein Shojaei 2
  • Mohammad Sahebkar Khorasani 2
1 Assisstant Professor, Department of Kowledge-based Economy, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
2 Assisstant Professor, Department of Innovation Policy and Foresight, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Conflict analysis is one of the important subjects in political stability/change studies. Since the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (SRT) is one of the leading actors in the country's education, research, and technology policies, how this ministry plays a role in the field of science, technology, and innovation policies is closely related to the sustainability and effectiveness of these policies. The current research aims to present the conflict model of the Ministry with an actor-oriented approach. This study was conducted with a qualitative approach and thematic analysis method, and research data was collected based on semi-structured interviews. The results show six key conflicts at three levels (1) macro policymaking actors, (2) policymaking and support actors, and (3) executive and operational actors. The main institutions involved in the conflict have been identified and introduced in each caseThe results show six key conflicts, whose titles and sides are (1) macro governance conflict with the supreme council of cultural revolution, the supreme council of SRT, the council of technologies and knowledge-based productions. (2) separation level with the ministry of education; (3) specialized fields with the ministry of health, treatment and medical education; (4) mission separation with the president's science and technology vice presidency; (5) tenure with universities and government research centers; (6) regulation with specialized educational and research institutions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conflict Analysis
  • Actor
  • Ministry of Science
  • Research and Technology
  • Science and Technology Policy

مراجع

[1] Macken-Walsh, Á. (2016). Governance, partnerships and power. In Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies (pp. 645-655): Routledge.
[2] Kingdon, J. W., & Stano, E. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45): Little, Brown Boston.
[3] Jenkins-Smith, H. C., St. Clair, G. K., & Woods, B. (1991). Explaining change in policy subsystems: Analysis of coalition stability and defection over time. American Journal of Political Science, 851-880.
[4] Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2020). The governance of global innovation systems: Putting knowledge in context. In Knowledge for governance (pp. 397-414): Springer, Cham.
[5] UNCTAD. (2016). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Review: The Islamic Republic of Iran: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
[6] Haji-Hosseini, H., mohammadi, M., Abbasi, F., & Elyasi, M. (2011). Analysis of Iranian Innovation System's Governance Based on Innovation Policy Making Cycle. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 4(1), 33-48. doi: 20.1001.1.20080840.1390.4.1.4.1.
[7] Abbasi, T., & Beygi, V. (2016). Explaining the Challenges of the Implementation of Public Policies in the Field of Science, Research and Technology. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(3), 1-12. doi: 20.1001.1.20080840.1395.9.3.2.8.
[8] Rajaee, A. (2018). The Study of the Governance of the Education Sector in Terms of Its Communication System in Different Countries of the World. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 07(4), 25-34. doi: 20.1001.1.24767220.1396.07.4.3.9.
[9] Abbasi, T., & Danaee Fard, H. (2014). Advocacy Coalition Framework and explanation of Policy Change; The law of Goals, Functions and Structure of Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 7(3), 1-17. doi: 20.1001.1.20080840.1393.7.3.2.4.
[10] Elyasi, M., Tabatabaeian, H., & Fartash, K. (2017). Analyzing Policy Process of the Law for Supporting Knowledge-Based Firms Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 10(2), 31-48. doi: 20.1001.1.20080840.1396.10.2.4.5.
[11] kousari, S., & Alizadeh, P. (2021). A Framework for Governing the STI System from the Perspective of Supply and Demand Policies; with the Aim of Legal and Functional Overlaps Elimination. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 14(2), 81-98. doi: 10.22034/jstp.2021.14.2.1334.
[12] Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2021). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (9th ed.): Routledge.
[13] Barbolet, A., Goldwyn, R., de la Haye, J., Moyroud, C., Mutunga, E., Othieno, R., . . . Werleigh, L.-C. (2004). Conflict-sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peace building: tools for peace and conflict impact assessment: Resource Pack.
[14] Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. doi: 10.2307/2393638.
[15] Molnar, J. J., & Rogers, D. L. (1979). A comparative model of interorganizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(3), 405-425. doi: 10.2307/2989920.
[16] Nyheim, D., Leonhardt, M., & Gaigals, C. (2001). Development in conflict: A seven step tool for planners. London: International Alert, Saferworld, and FEWER.
[17] Fisher, S., Matovic, V., Walker, B. A., & Mathews, D. (2020). Working with Conflict 2: Skills and Strategies for Action. London: Zed books.
[18] Herbert, S. (2017). Conflict Analysis Topic Guide. Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
[19] Bright, L. S. (2001). The conflict mapping chart. Retrieved from https://www.in-mediation.eu/wp-content/uploads/file/ConflictMapping.pdf
[20] Woodrow, P., Tsuma, W., Aulin, J., & Movlazadeh, Z. (2015). Conflict analysis framework: Field Guidelines and procedures:  Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC).
[21] Sandole, D. J. D. (1998). A comprehensive mapping of conflict and conflict resolution: A three pillar approach. Peace and Conflict Studies, 5(2), Article 4.
[22] Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict: John Wiley & Sons.
[23] Zupan, N. (2005). Development Assistance and Peace Building Projects in Conflict Areas. Background, Tools, Lessons Learned, and Challenges Ahead. International Politics and Society, 4, 49-62.
[24] Korostelina, K. V. (2009). Identity conflicts: models of dynamics and early warning. In D. J. D. Sandole, S. Byrne, I. Sandole-Staroste , & J. Senehi (Eds.), Handbook of conflict analysis and resolution (pp. 100-115). London: Routledge.
[25] Levinger, M. B. (2013). Conflict analysis: Understanding causes, unlocking solutions: United States Inst of Peace Press.
[26] Lumineau, F., Eckerd, S., & Handley, S. (2015). Inter-organizational conflicts: Research overview, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 1(1), 42-64. doi: 10.1177/2055563614568493.
[27] Visoka, G., & Beha, A. (2015). Clearing the fog of the conflict. Pristina: Kosovo Institute of Peace.
[28] Engelberg, S., Geugjes, M., Hermsen, M., Stüber, V., & Unrath, E. (2018). Conflict Barometer 2017. Heidelberg: Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK).
[29] Omidi, R. (2020). Institutional conflict and policy failure. Journal of Social Problems of Iran, 11(1), 103-133. doi: 10.22059/ijsp.2020.79196.
[30] Park, C.-T. (2003). A Study on Inter-Ministerial Policy Conflict and Coordination: Focusing on the Science and Technology Basic Law Making Process in Korea. Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 3(1), 105-156.
[31] Manteqi, M., Hasani, A., & Boushehri, A. (2009). Identifying the Policy Making Challenges in the National Innovation System of Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2(3), 87-101. doi: 20.1001.1.20080840.1388.2.3.8.5.
[32] Roshan, A., & Motevaseli, M. (2018). Designing a Stakeholder-Oriented Pattern, Based On Good Governance for Improving the Quality of the Ministry Of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT). Journal of Research in Educational Science, 12(41), 49-71. doi: 10.22034/jiera.2018.64750.
[33] Majidpour, M., & Namdarian, L. (2016). Identifying Barriers to Science and Technology Policy Implementation in Iran. Innovation Management Journal, 4(4), 31-60.
[34] Zabetpor, H., Beidokhti, A., Rezaie, A., & Salehi, E. (2019). Identifying and Prioritizing the Barriers and Challenges of Implementing Higher Education Policies in Iran. Sociology of Social Institutions, 6(13), 203-230. doi: 10.22080/ssi.2019.14934.1499.
[35] Hadavand, M., Fateh Rad, M., & Tabatabaeian, S. (2017). Process Analyze of Policy-Making in Iran’s National Innovation System (An Institutional Mapping Framework). Quarterly Journal of The Macro and Strategic Policies, 4(16), 1-18.
[36] Marandi, H. R. (2023). Effective institutional autonomy in public universities in Iran: a necessity for mobility in globalized environment. Research and Planning in Higher Education, 20(4), 1-28.
[37] Nedjat, S., Yazdizadeh, B,. Gholami, J., Ashorkhani, M., Nedjat, S., Maleki, K., & Majdzadeh, R. (2008). Effect of Ministry of Health and Medical Education structure on application of medical research. Hakim Research Journal, 11(3), 1- 10.
[38] Taslimi, M., Noroozi, K., Abdolhoseinzadeh, M., & Javadi, M. (2016). Science and Technology Macro Intermediary Institutions; a Paradigmatic Model: the Case Study of Science and Technology Vice Presidency. Strategy, 25(2), 5-28. doi: 0.1001.1.10283102.1395.25.2.5.7.
[39] Razagh Marandi, Hadi., Rahimzade, Khoram., Ghorban Khaje, Ov, (2013). Institutional autonomy in the Iranian public universities affiliated with the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Iranian Higher Education, 5(4), 137.
[40] Razagh Marandi , Hadi. (2022). Effective institutional autonomy in public universities in Iran: a necessity for mobility in globalized environment. Research and Planning in Higher Education, 20(4), 1-28.
 
 
سیاست علم و فناوری
دوره 16، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 57
اردیبهشت 1402
صفحه 35-50

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار