زیربناهای فلسفی و روش‌شناختی آزمایشگاه سیاستی؛ از واقع‌گرایی انتقادی و پس‌کاوی تا سیاست‌گذاری پیچیدگی‌محور

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه پژوهشی توسعه اجتماعی جهاد دانشگاهی، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار گروه روان‌شناسی اجتماعی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات اجتماعی، جهاددانشگاهی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

در سه دهه اخیر، آزمایشگاه سیاستی به ‌عنوان یکی از رویکردهای نوظهور در سیاست‌گذاری عمومی مطرح شده است که بر تحولی پارادایم‌گونه در بنیان‌های هستی‌شناختی، معرفت‌شناختی و روش‌شناختی سیاست‌گذاری دلالت دارد. مسئله اصلی این مقاله، تبیین منطق معرفتی و روش‌شناختی آزمایشگاه سیاستی در گذار از سیاست‌گذاری خطی به حکمرانی یادگیرنده در شرایط پیچیدگی است. بر این اساس، هستی‌شناسی آزمایشگاه سیاستی بر واقع‌گرایی انتقادی و فهم لایه‌مند واقعیت اجتماعی استوار است؛ واقعیتی که در آن سازوکارهای علی پنهان و چندسطحی، رفتار کنشگران و پیامدهای اجتماعی را شکل می‌دهند. معرفت‌شناسی آن بر پس‌کاوی و به‌تبیینی تکیه دارد و داده‌ها را نشانه‌ای از سازوکارهای تولیدکننده پدیده‌ها می‌داند. از منظر روش‌شناختی، آزمایشگاه سیاستی ترکیبی از مدل‌سازی سیستم‌های پویا، شبیه‌سازی عامل‌مبنا، تحلیل شبکه‌ای و ارزیابی علی را برای فهم و اصلاح سیاست‌ها پیش از تعمیم بکار می‌گیرد. یافته‌های تحلیلی مقاله نشان می‌دهد آزمایشگاه سیاستی می‌تواند ضعف‌های سه سنت غالب تحصل‌گرایی، تفسیرگرایی و عمل‌گرایی را مرتفع کرده و زمینه استقرار حکمرانی انطباق‌پذیر و یادگیرنده را فراهم سازد. در پایان بحث می‌شود استقرار چنین رویکردی مستلزم بنیان نظری مستحکم، زیرساخت داده‌محور و سازوکارهای اعتمادساز نهادی است؛ امری که برای کشورهایی چون ایران با پیچیدگی اجتماعی بالا اهمیتی دوچندان دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of Policy Labs; from Critical Realism and Retroduction to Complexity-Oriented Policy-Making

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Mobaraki 1
  • zohre shahbazi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Social Development Research Department, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Institute For Humanities and Social Studies (IHSS), Department of Social Psychology, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Over the past three decades, the policy lab has emerged as a novel approach in public policy, signaling paradigm-like shift in the ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations of policymaking. The core question of this article is to explicate the epistemic and methodological logic of policy labs and to examine their theoretical contribution to the transition from linear policymaking toward adaptive and learning-oriented governance under conditions of social complexity. Ontologically, policy labs draw on critical realism and a layered understanding of social reality in which hidden, multi-level causal mechanisms shape actors’ behavior and policy outcomes. Epistemologically, they rely on Retroduction and innovation, treating data as indicators of underlying generative mechanisms rather than endpoints of knowledge. Methodologically, policy labs integrate system dynamics modelling, agent-based simulation, network analysis, and causal evaluation to test and refine policy options prior to wider implementation. The analytical findings suggest that policy labs can overcome the limitations of the three dominant traditions—positivism, interpretivism, and pragmatism—and enable the establishment of adaptive and learning governance. The article concludes that institutionalizing such a paradigm requires a robust theoretical foundation, data-driven infrastructures, and trust-building institutional arrangements—an imperative that becomes even more critical for countries like Iran with high levels of social complexity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Policy lab
  • Critical realism
  • Learning governance
  • Complexity-oriented policymaking
  • Retroduction

مراجع

[1] Byrne D, Callaghan G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. Routledge.
[2] Geyer, R., & Rihani, S. (2012). Complexity And Public Policy: A New Approach To 21st Century Politics, Policy And Society. Routledge.
[3] Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford University Press.
[4] Sterman, J. D. (2000). Systems Thinking And Modeling For A Complex World. Management, 6(1), 7-17.
[5] Zargham Afshar, M., Sheikhi, S., & Gheidarloo, K. (2023) Pathology Of Policymaking In Iran: With An Emphasis On The Social Dimension. Tehran: Majlis Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. {In Persian}. 10.22034/scs.2023.382049.1400
[6] Attar, S., & Khajeh-Naeini, A. (2015) Examining And Analyzing Factors Affecting The Inefficiency of The Policymaking System in Iran. Public Policy Quarterly. 20, 1–20. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/10.22059/ppolicy.2015.57149.
[7] Feyzi, S., Mohammadi, Gh., & Asgari, M. Assessing The Stability of Laws in Iran’s Legislative System. Public Finance and Economics Quarterly, 2020, 4, 45–67. {In Persian}.
[8] Majlis Research Center. (2023) Monitoring The Dimensions of Poverty (No. 2): Education Poverty. Tehran: Majlis Research Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2025 {In Persian}.
[9] Bhaskar R. (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. Hassock: Harvester press ets.
[10] Reichertz J. (2010) Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory1. Forum Qual Sozialforschung. 11. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n10.
[11] Kolkman D. (2020) The Usefulness Of Algorithmic Models In Policy Making. Gov Inf Q 37.
[12] Green B, Chen Y. (2020) Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contexts. Hum-Compute Interact. 5:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479562
[13]         van Hulst M, Metze T, Dewulf A, de Vries J. (2025) Discourse, Framing And Narrative: Three Ways of Doing Critical, Interpretive Policy Analysis. Critical Policy Studies. 19:74–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936
[14] Fischer, F. (2025). Interpretivism Vs. Positivism In Policy Studies: Is There Common Ground?. Critical Policy Studies, 19(3), 371-376.
[15] Sayer A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. SAGE.
[16]         Haddad CR, Nakic V, Bergek A. (2023) Towards An Integrated Framework For Evaluating Transformative Innovation Policy. Res Policy 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104676
[17] Archer M, Newman. (2020) Social Morphogenesis And The Challenges of Late Modernity. Springer.
[18] Parker, J. (2004). Structuration. Translated by Amirabbas Saeidi Pour. Tehran: Ashian Publishing. {In Persian}.
[19] Geyer R, Rihani S. (2010) Complexity and Public Policy. Routledge.
[20] Greenhalgh T. (2022) The Science-Policy Relationship In Times Of Crisis: An Urgent Pragmatism-Informed Shift. Soc Sci Med; 306. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115140
[21] Blaikie, N. (2005). Designing Social Research. Translated by Hassan Chavoshian. Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. {In Persian}.
[22] Ghazinoori, S., & Radaei, N. (2019). A Framework For Formulating Science, Technology, And Innovation Policy Programs. Science and Technology Policy, 12, 527–542. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.35.0 {In Persian}.
[23] Van Berkel, J., de Bruijn, E. J., Waardenburg, M., La Grouw, Y., Van Bennekom, E., Van Der Horst, H., ... & De Vet, E. (2024). Realist Approach to Social Policies (RASP) Study to Reduce Socioeconomic Health Inequalities Through Systems Change: Protocol For A Research Project Combining Mixed-Methods Realist Research With Institutional Action Research. BMJ open, 14(6), e088571.
[24] Epstein, J. M. (2006) Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press.
[25] Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC. (2009) Analyzing Social Networks. SAGE Publications.
[26] Centola D. (2018) How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagions. Princeton University Press.
[27] Valente TW. (2010) Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications. Oxford University Press.
[28] Prell C. (2012) Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology. SAGE Publications.
[29] Sanderson I. (2021) Evaluation, Policy Learning And Evidence-Informed Policymaking. Eur J Policy Res 10:123–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00292
 [30] OECD. (2017) Systems Approach To Public Sector Challenges. OECD Publishing.
[31] OECD. (2021) Tools And Ethics For Innovative Public Policy. OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation.
[32] Mazzucato M, Kattel R. (2020) COVID-19 And Public-Sector Capacity. Ind Corp Change 29:1–19.
[33] Bason C. (2018) Leading Public Sector Innovation. Policy Press.
[34] Hedström P, Ylikoski P. (2010) Causal Mechanisms In The Social Sciences. Annu Rev Social.36:49–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632
[35] Geyer R. Navigating Complexity in Public Policy.
[36] Hamidi, M. (2021). Policy Report: Content Analysis of Upstream Policy Documents, Laws, And Previous Development Plans. National Center for Scientific Policy Research. {In Persian}.
[37] Argyris C, Schön D. (2019) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Rev. ed.). Routledge.
[38] Stame N. (2021) Causality And Mechanisms In Evaluation: The Contribution of Realist Approaches. Evaluation.
[39] Barzelay M. (2020) Public Management as A Design-Oriented Professional Discipline. Edward Elgar.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار