- Author
- Kalantari Esmaeel (Tarbiat Modares University, Iran), Montazer Gholamali (Tarbiat Modares University, Iran), Ghazinoory Sepehr (Tarbiat Modares University, Iran)
- Title
- Mapping of a Science and Technology Policy Network Based on Social Network Analysis
- Source
- Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2021, vol. 17, nr 3, s. 115-147, tab., rys., aneks, bibliogr. s. 139-144
- Issue title
- A Network Approach in Strategic Management : Emerging Trends and Research Concepts
- Keyword
- Polityka naukowo-techniczna, Analiza sieci społecznych, Polityka
Scientific and technical policy, Social Network Analysis (SNA), Politics - Note
- JEL Classification: I2, O38
streszcz., summ. - Abstract
- CEL: Głównym celem tego artykułu jest zdefiniowanie sieci polityki naukowej i technologicznej w postaci sieci społecznej z perspektywy dokumentów politycznych, a następnie jej analiza metodą analizy sieci społecznych (SNA). METODYKA: Jako studium przypadku, sieć polityki naukowej i technologicznej w Iranie jest analizowana przy użyciu sugerowanych ram w tym badaniu. Dane wykorzystane w tym badaniu zostały zebrane poprzez analizę treści 25 dokumentów politycznych i wywiadów z 20 przedstawicielami irańskich elit polityki naukowej i technologicznej, zanim zostały zinterpretowane przy użyciu metody analizy sieci społecznej i oprogramowania, takiego jak NetDraw i UCINET. WYNIKI: Najważniejsze instytucje kształtujące politykę naukową i technologiczną w Iranie oraz interakcje między nimi zostały określone z punktu widzenia sieci. Udało się to osiągnąć poprzez przeprowadzenie dwuwymiarowej analizy rdzeń-peryferia, zidentyfikowanie punktów cięcia i bloków oraz pomiar siły strukturalnej każdej instytucji przy użyciu stopnia centralności, centralności bliskości i centralności pośredniczącej. IMPLIKACJE DLA TEORII I PRAKTYKI: Najważniejszymi praktycznymi implikacjami tych badań są: integracja szeregu instytucji tworzących politykę, podział wyraźnej i precyzyjnej pracy pomiędzy instytucje polityczne, projektowanie mechanizmów koordynacji pionowej i poziomej między instytucjami, eliminacja ingerencji jednych instytucji w zadania innych, projektowanie komplementarnych mechanizmów kontroli roli punktów cięcia oraz zwracanie uwagi na ważne działania na marginesach sieci. ORYGINALNOŚĆ I WARTOŚĆ: Najważniejszym wkładem tych badań jest opracowanie ram badania polityki naukowej i technologicznej, a następnie opracowanie metody badania polityki naukowej i technologicznej opartej na SNA. W związku z tym ramy badania polityki naukowej i technologicznej w cyklu składają się z trzech etapów: 1- Ustalanie agendy i ustalanie priorytetów (na dwóch poziomach megapolityki i metapolityki); 2- Projektowanie i wdrażanie lub polityki wykonawcze (w trzech częściach: polityka po stronie popytu, polityka po stronie podaży oraz polityka dotycząca infrastruktury sieciowej i wzajemnych połączeń); 3- ewaluacja i nauka polityki. (abstrakt oryginalny)
PURPOSE: The main purpose of this paper is to define a science and technology policy network in the form of a social network, from the perspective of policy documents, and then analyze it using the social networks analysis (SNA) method. METHODOLOGY: As a case study, the science and technology policymaking network in Iran is analyzed using the suggested framework in this research. The data used in this study were collected through the content analysis of 25 policy documents and an interview with 20 Iranian science and technology policy elites, before being interpreted using the social network analysis method and software such as NetDraw and UCINet. FINDINGS: The most pivotal science and technology policymaking institutions in Iran and the interactions between them were determined from the network viewpoint. This was achieved by performing a two-dimensional core-periphery analysis, identifying the cut points and blocks, and measuring the structural power of each institution using the degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality methods. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE: The most important practical implications of this research are: the integration of a number of policymaking institutions, the division of clear and precise work between policy institutions, the design of vertical and horizontal coordination mechanisms between institutions, the elimination of interferences of some institutions in the tasks of the others, the design of complementary mechanisms to control the role of cutting points, and paying attention to the important activities in the margins of the network. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: The most important contribution of this research is to develop a framework for studying science and technology policy and then to develop a method for studying science and technology policy based on SNA. Therefore, the framework for studying science and technology policy in a cycle consists of three stages: 1- Agenda setting and prioritization (at two levels of mega policies and meta policies); 2- Design and implementation or executive policies (in three parts: demand-side policies, supply-side policies, and networking and interconnection infrastructure policies); 3- evaluation and policy learning. (original abstract) - Full text
- Show
- Bibliography
- Ahlqvist, T., Valovirta, V., & Loikkanen, T. (2012). Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design. Science and Public Policy, 39, 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs016
- Akinsanya, A. A., & Ayoade, J. A. (2013). An Introduction to Political Science in Nigeria. USA: UPA Publications.
- Bartzokas, A., & Teubal, M. (2002). A framework for policy oriented innovation studies in industrializing countries. Journal of the Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(4-5), 477-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590200000009
- Bikar, V., Capron, H., & Cincera, M. (2009). An Integrated Evaluation Scheme of Innovation Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Belgium: Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Blanco, I., Lowndes, V., & Pratchett, L. (2011). Policy networks and governance networks: Towards greater conceptual clarity. Political Studies Review, 9(3), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00239.x
- Brandes, U., & Erlebach, T. (2005). Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/b106453
- Browne, J., de Leeum, E., Gleeson, D., Adams, K., Atkinson, P., & Hayes, R. (2017). A network approach to policy framing: A case study of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. Social Science and Medicine, 172, 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.011
- Capron, H., & Cincera, M. (2001). Assessing the Institutional Set-up of National Innovation Systems. UK: Oxford: Elsevier Science LTD.
- Clark, J., & Guy, K. (1998). Innovation and competitiveness: A review. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(3), 363-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524322
- Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2018). The Global Innovation Index 2018: Energizing the World with Innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva: WIPO Publications.
- Danaeifard, H. (2004). Popular theory in public administration: The preconditions for developing a theory of public. Management Studies in Development & Evolution, 10(37-38). 149-181.
- Denzin, N., & Linkoln, Y. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. New York: Sage Publications.
- Dror, Y. (1971). Design for Policy Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000276427201500646
- Edler, J., Cunnigham, P. N., Gok, A., & Shapira, P. (2013). Impact of Innovation Policy: Synthesis and Conclusions. London: The University of Manchester and NESTA.
- Edler, J., & Yeow, J. (2016). Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 414-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.010
- Edquist, C. (2001). Innovation policy - a systemic approach. In D. Archibugi & B. A. Lundvall (Eds.), The Globalizing Learning Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/0.1093/0199258171.001.0001
- Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society, 21(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(98)00037-2
- Estrada, E. (2013). Graph and Network Theory. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
- European Commission. (2015). Supply and Demand Side Innovation Policies: Annexes of First Policy Brief. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. http://doi.org/10.2777/441701
- Ghazinoory, S., & Ghazinoori, S. (2008). Extracting strategies for modification of the national innovation system of Iran based on a comparative study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 1(1), 65-81.
- Haji Hoseini, H., Mohammadi, M., Abbasi, F., & Elyasi, M. (2011). Analysis of Iranian innovation system's governance based on innovation policymaking cycle. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 4(1), 33-48.
- Hanneman, R. A. (2001). Introduction to Social Network Methods. California: University of California.
- Hanneman, R. A., & Riddel, M. (2005). Introduction to Social Networks Methods. California: University of California.
- Hansen, E. G., Ludeke-Freund, F., Quan X., & West, J. (2015). Beyond Technology Push vs. Demand Pull: The Evolution of Solar Policy in the U.S. Germany and China, Leuneburg: Leuphana University of Leuneburg.
- Helms, R., Ignacio, R., Brinkkemper, S., & Zonneveld, A. (2010). Limitations of network analysis for studying efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge sharing. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 53-68.
- Hjelt, M., Ahvenharju, S., Halonen, M., & Syrjanen, M. (2005). Summary of the MONIT Sustainable Development Policy Case Study in Governance of Innovation System. Vol.1: Synthesis Report, Paris: OECD Publications.
- INSEAD, Alcatel- Lucent, Booz & Company, Confederation of Indian Industry, & WIPO. (2011) The Global Innovation Index 2011: Accelerating Growth and Development, France: INSEAD.
- Kalantari, E., & Charkhtab Moghadam, J. (2015). Identifying and ranking the industry and technology considerations affecting transfer of high technologies at various Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Industrial Management Journal, 7(1), 107-124. http://doi.org/10.22059/imj.2015.52895
- Kalantari, E., Meigoon Poori, M., & Yadollahi Farsi, J. (2015). Study of organizational factors affecting the academic research commercialization strategy (Case study: Nanotechnology). Organizational Culture Management, 13(2), 415-435. http://doi.org/10.22059/jomc.2015.54108
- Kalantari, E., Montazer, G., & Ghazinoory, S. (2021). Modeling the characteristics of collaborative science and technology policy network. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1908537
- Kalantari, E., Montazer, G., & Ghazinoory, S. (2019). Developing transition scenarios to the improved situation of science and technology policy structure in Iran. Strategic Management Researches, 25(74), 75-102.
- Kim, L., & Dahlman, C. J. (1992). Technology policy for industrialization: An integrative framework and Korea`s experience. Research Policy, 21(5), 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(92)90004-N
- Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas: Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins.
- Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1990). Network Analysis. New York: Sage Publications.
- Leith, P., Warman, R., Harwood, A., Bosomworth, K., & Wallis, P. (2018). An operation on `the neglected heart of science policy`: Reconciling supply and demand for climate change adaptation research. Environmental Science and Policy, 82, 117-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.015
- Manteghi, M., Hasani, A., & Boushehri, A. R. (2010). Identifying the policymaking challenges in the national innovation system of Iranʼ. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2(3), 87-102.
- Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219-1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012
- Mikulsliene, B., & Pitrenaite-Zileniene, B. (2013). Management of participation practice: Reconstruction of Lithuania's formal policy networks by means of social network analysis. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 79, 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.05.061
- Miyakawa, T. (1999). The Science of Public Policy: Policy Analysis. UK: Taylor & Francis.
- Mohammadi Kangarani, H., & Rafsanjani Nezhad, S. (2015). Investigation of policy structure in legal authorities of institutions related to water policymaking and management. Public Policy, 1(3), 121-138. https://dx.doi.org/10.22059/ppolicy.2015.57682
- Montazer, G., & Kalantari, E. (2019). Reflection on science and technology events in Iran during the last two centuries (Before and after the Islamic Revolution). Islamic Revolution Research, 8(30), 153-179. http://doi.org/20.1001.1.23222573.1398.8.30.8.2
- Montazer, G., Kalantari, E., Qazinoori, S. S. (2019). Theory of policy networks: An attitude for explaining the problems of the institutional structure of science and technology policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Islamic Revolution Studies, 16(58), 7-32.
- Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., & Martin, B. R. (2010). Technology policy and global warning: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won`t work). Research Policy, 39(8), 1011-1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.008
- Niosi, J. (2002). National systems of innovations are x-efficient and x-effective why some are slow learners. Research Policy, 31(2), 291-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00142-1
- Normann, H. E. (2017). Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 80- 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.004
- 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.
- Nourizadeh, M., Kalantari, E., & Habiba, S. (2018). Modeling of Tehran residents attitude to GMFs using structural equations. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(4), 71-82.
- OECD. (1999). Managing National Innovation System. Paris: OECD Publications. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189416-en
- OECD. (2005). Governance of Innovation Systems. Vol. 1: Synthesis Report. Paris: OECD Publications.
- OECD. (2012). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD Publications. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en
- Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S., & Ralson, D. A. (2006). New frontiers in network theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 3(31), 560-568. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318917
- Polt, W. (2005). Summary of the MONIT Information Society Policy Case Study in Governance of Innovation System, Vol.1: Synthesis Report. Paris: OECD Publications.
- Preskill, H., & Russ-Eft, D. (2005). Building Evaluation Capacity. London: Sage Publications.
- Rogelja, T., & Shannon, M. A. (2017). Structural power in Serbian anti-corruption forest policy network. Forest Policy and Economics, 82, 52-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.008
- Roolaht, T. (2011). The demand-side innovation policies in the context of small EU member countires. Estonina Discussions on Economics Policy, 18, 404-427. https://doi.org/10.15157/tpep.v18i0.891
- Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, Jr. R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Research, 10(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
- Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
- Soltani, B., Haji Hoseini, H. A., Arasti, M. R., Ghazinoory, S., Razavi, M. R., Shafiaa, M. A., Manteghi, M., Tabatabaeian, H. A., & Shaverdi, M. (2017). A review on Iran's NIS challenges and proposing policies and initiatives for improvement. Journal of Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 7(23), 185- 198.
- Soltanzadeh, J., Heydari, K., Dabbaghi, H., & Ansari, R. (2017). A functional analysis of national innovation system of Iran. Modiriate Farda, 15(49), 143-160.
- Tabatabaeian, S., & Bagheri, S. (2003). National policymaking and national innovation systems. Industrial Management Studies, 1(2), 83-99.
- Taylor, M. (2008). Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California`s solar policy. Energy Economics, 30(6), 2829-2854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.06.004
- Teubal, M. (1993). The Innovation System of Israel: Description, Performance and Outstanding Issues, National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Tsipouri, L. (2013). Innovation strategies articulating supply side and demand side aspects. Research and Innovation Policies Seminar. Retrieved from https://era.gv.at/public/documents/644/background_paper_session_2.pdf
- UNCTAD. (2011). A Framework for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Reviews: Helping Counties Leverage Knowledge and Innovation for Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publications.
- UNCTAD. (2016). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Review: The Islamic Republic of Iran. New York and Geneva. United Nations Publications.
- Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1999). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478
- Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Social Structures: A Network Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961708
- Wojnicka-Sycz, E., Kaczynski, M., & Sycz, P. (2020). Innovative ecosystems behind regional smart specializations: The role of social, cognitive and geographical proximity. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.7341/20201635
- Zaker Salehi, G. (2012). A survey of science and technology status quo in Iran and in its development plans. The Journal of Planning and Budgeting, 16(4), 3-47.
- Yin, R. R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousands Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
- Yun, S. J., Ku, D., & Han, J. Y. (2014). Climate policy networks in South Korea: Alliances and conflicts. Climate Policy, 14(2), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.831240
- Cited by
- ISSN
- 2299-7075
- Language
- eng
- URI / DOI
- https://doi.org/10.7341/20211734