proposing a future-oriented S&T prioritization model for Iran based on expert views

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Futures Studies Dep., National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy

3 Assistant Professor and Member of Faculty of National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP)

4 Associate Professor, Sharif University of technology

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to present a future-oriented model for prioritizing S&T in accordance with Iran's needs. The data collection tools are interviews, questionnaires and documents. In this research, using the method of content analysis, factors affecting the prioritization of S&T were identified. After that, the national requirements of the initial model of prioritizing S&T were examined with the help of interviews with experts, the initial future-oriented S&T prioritization model in accordance with Iran's conditions was presented. After that, the model was validated with the help of an expert questionnaire and the experts confirmed the desirability of the model from the perspectives of accuracy, comprehensiveness and constraint, simplicity and ease, balance and balance, applicability, and finally innovation. The results show that this model includes four steps: " pre-prioritization", "determining the initial list of priorities", "identifying the priority space" and " future-oriented prioritizing ". Also, the components of this model include functional priorities in addition to thematic priorities, prioritizing based on non-economic approaches, no conflict of interests of individuals and institutions, no path dependency, vertical policy coordination, long-term approach, participatory, systemic, the use of quantitative methods of futures studies, qualitative methods and robust planning method.

Keywords

References

  • Reference

    • Ahmadian, M., a. Pedram, and S. Zali, Designing a sustainable prioritization model in strategic industries. behboud modiriat, 2016. 9(30): p. 31-59.
    • Bagheri, M. N., Sahafzadeh, M., Emamian, S., & Iranikhah, A. (2009), National Iranian Gas Company, Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 4(1), p. 1-10.
    • Bandariyan, R., A.N. Ahmadi, and H. Ghafariyan, Priority setting for required chemical technology development areas of petroleum industry in order to policy making for fundamental and applied research in chemical science by using TOPSIS and technology breakdown methodology. Journal of Technology Development Management, 2016. 3(4): p. 127-148
    • Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation: Polity.
    • Chermack, T. J. (2011). Learning-Decision scenarios Scenario Planning in Organizations: How to Create, Use, and Assess Scenarios (pp. 288): Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
    • Choi, M., & Choi, H. L. (2015). Foresight for science and technology priority setting in Korea. Форсайт, 9(3 (eng)).
    • Danaefard, H., M. Alvani, and A. Azar, Quantitative research methodology in management: a comprehensive approach. 2004, Tehran: saffar
    • De Haan, S., Kingamkono, R., Tindamanyire, N., Mshinda, H., Makandi, H., Tibazarwa, F., ... & Montorzi, G. (2015). Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience. Health research policy and systems, 13(1), 1-11.
    • Fatemi, M. and M. Arasti, Priority-Setting in Science, Technology and Innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2019. 12(2): p. 119-133
    • Gassler, H., Polt, W., & Rammer, C. (2007). Priority setting in research & technology policy-historical developments and recent trends. Joanneum Research, Vienna.
    • Georghiou, L., & Harper, J. C. (2011). From priority-setting to articulation of demand: Foresight for research and innovation policy and strategy. Futures, 43(3), 243-251.
    • ghazinoori, s. and s. ghazinoori, Introduction to Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. 2014: Trabiat Modares University
    • Ghorbani, S., S. Salavatian, and A. Etemadnia, Forecasting and Prioritizing Key Information and Communication Technologies in Publication for Voice and Audio Organization. Future study Management, 2019. 30(117): p. 13-28.
    • Glod, F., Duprel, C., & Keenan, M. (2009). Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country: the case of Luxembourg. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(8), 933-951.
    • Godinho, M. M., & Caraça, J. (2009, October). Setting research priorities: A taxonomy of policy models. In 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
    • Gordon, T. J. (2007). Energy forecasts using a “Roundless” approach to running a Delphi study. Foresight.
    • Gordon, T.J. (2007), "Energy forecasts using a “Roundless” approach to running a Delphi study", Foresight, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-35
    • Grebenyuk, A., Shahsnov, S., & Sokolov, A. (2016). S&T Priority Setting. International Practices and the Case of Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP, 67.
    • Haegeman, K., Spiesberger, M., Veselitskaya, N., Sokolov, A., & Weiss, G. (2015). FTA supporting effective priority setting in multi-lateral research programme cooperation: The case of EU–Russia S&T cooperation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 200-215.
    • Heirani, H., N. Bagheri Moghadam, and S.R. Razavi pour, Prioritizing R & D projects at national level; Case study: Energy Commission of the High Council of Science, Research and Technology. Rahyaft, 2012. 22(52): p. 5-16
    • Hellström, T., Jacob, M., & Sjöö, K. (2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 599-608.
    • hoddousi mohammadi, m., R. Ghousi, and m. heydari, using a foresight model to determine research priorities for industry managers. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 2018. 19(76): p. 143-159
    • Keenan, M., Cutler, P., Marks, J., Meylan, R., Smith, C., & Koivisto, E. (2012). Orienting international science cooperation to meet global ‘grand challenges’. Science and Public Policy, 39(2), 166-177.
    • Lashkarbolouki, M., Designing a Robust Strategic Development Process Model in Uncertainty Using Interpretive Structural Modeling. 2011, Shahid Beheshti University
    • Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2019). Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies. Research policy, 48(10), 103612.
    • Mortazavi, M., Ranaei, H., & Abbasi, H. (2011). The application of Multi Attribute Decision Methods (MADM) on prioritizing Iranian fisheries research projects. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 10(1), 47-66.
    • Nazemi, A., A. shamae, and R. Ghadiri, Methodology of prioritizing science and technology in the comprehensive scientific map of the country: border demarcation index in 4th International Conference on Management of Technology and Innovation. 2010.
    • Nazemi, A., Ghadiri, R., A, foresight of aerospace technology in Iran 1404. 2015, Tehran: National Research Institute for Science Policy
    • Proskuryakova, L. (2019). Foresight for the ‘energy’priority of the Russian Science and Technology Strategy. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100378.
    • Rahbar, A.H., A. Nasresfahani, and M. Askarian, Reflections on scientific Comprehensive Map of the country with the aim of enriching the upcoming edition of the map. Journal of Industrial Technology Development, 2014. 23(23): p. 41-58
    • Rahbar, A.H., Development of a resistance economy model at the industry level; Case study of petrochemical industries and some downstream industries. 2017, Tehran.
    • Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. sage.
    • Salo, A., & Liesiö, J. (2006). A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5(01), 65-88.
    • Sarmad, Z., A. Bazargan, and E. Hejazi, Research methods in behavioral sciences. 2006, Tehran: Agah Publications
    • Schultz, W. (2003). Incasting: Classic -- The "Little Black Dress" of Foresight Exercises. Retrieved from http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/inclassic.shtml
    • SCSRT(AATF), Policies and priorities of research and technology in the country from 1396 to 1400. 2017, The Supreme Council for Science, Research and Technology Tehran.
    • Shokatian, T. and S. Ghazinoory, A Framework to prioritize basic researches for governmental support. Public Policy, 2020. 6(2): p. 75-93
    • Sokolov, A., & Chulok, A. (2016). Priorities for future innovation: Russian S&T Foresight 2030. Futures, 80, 17-32.
    • Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., & Grebenyuk, A. (2017). Identification of priorities for S&T cooperation of BRICS countries. International Organisations Research Journal, 12(4).
    • Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., & Grebenyuk, A. (2019). Quantitative analysis for a better-focused international STI collaboration policy: A case of BRICS. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 221-242.
    • Sokolova, A., Grebenyuk, A. and Sokolov, A. (2018), "Twenty years of S&T priority setting in Russia: lessons learned", Foresight, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 449-466
    • Steinert, M. (2009). A dissensus based online Delphi approach: An explorative research tool. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(3), 291-300.
    • Taghavi, M., M. Pakzad, and M. Mohaghegh, explain a model for determining research and technology priorities. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities 2011. 16(63): p. 135-158
    • Urashima, K., Yokoo, Y. and Nagano, H. (2012), "S&T policy and foresight investigation – impacts in Japan", Foresight, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-25

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 August 2021
  • Revise Date: 10 January 2022
  • Accept Date: 22 January 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics