1- Department of Public Administration, Institute for Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Public Administration, Institute for Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran. ,a.jahangiri@imps.ac.ir
3- Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Innovation Policy and Future Studies, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Public Administration, Institute for Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Innovation Policy and Future Studies, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (416 Views)
Purpose: Now that more than a decade has passed since the implementation of the law "Supporting Knowledge-Based Companies and Institutions and Commercializing Innovations and Inventions", the issue of evaluating the level of achievement of the predetermined goals in this law and analyzing the quality of achievements regarding their positive and negative effects on the target community is of great importance. The present study was conducted with the aim of presenting an evaluation model of supporting policy for knowledge-based companies and institutions.
Methodology: In this qualitative research, the statistical population of the research consisted of two parts: the first were documents, plans, drafts, the text of the law, regulations, instructions, correspondence and administrative orders related to the law and the second were managers, experts, policymakers and implementers of the policy. The collection of research data was conducted using a documentary-library method and fieldwork through semi-structured interviews with academic and executive experts in the field of policymaking. The sampling method was snowball and purposeful theoretical saturation, through which we obtained the opinions from fifteen experts. We analyzed the research data using content analysis method and Atlas T software, version 7.
Findings: Based on the research results, 363 basic themes, thirty-two organizing themes, and nine comprehensive themes were discovered and presented in the formwork of a model with such key structural items as policy functions, desirable characteristics, evaluation structure, environmental factors, evaluation scheduling, appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, and usefulness.
Originality: In this study, we considered semantic commonalities of evaluation literature and, in accordance with the context and subject of evaluation, the desired evaluation approach and model of supporting policy for knowledge-based companies and institutions was presented.
Implications: formulating quantitative, specific, and measurable objectives for supporting policy in knowledge-based companies and institutions is the suggestion of this research.
Methodology: In this qualitative research, the statistical population of the research consisted of two parts: the first were documents, plans, drafts, the text of the law, regulations, instructions, correspondence and administrative orders related to the law and the second were managers, experts, policymakers and implementers of the policy. The collection of research data was conducted using a documentary-library method and fieldwork through semi-structured interviews with academic and executive experts in the field of policymaking. The sampling method was snowball and purposeful theoretical saturation, through which we obtained the opinions from fifteen experts. We analyzed the research data using content analysis method and Atlas T software, version 7.
Findings: Based on the research results, 363 basic themes, thirty-two organizing themes, and nine comprehensive themes were discovered and presented in the formwork of a model with such key structural items as policy functions, desirable characteristics, evaluation structure, environmental factors, evaluation scheduling, appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, and usefulness.
Originality: In this study, we considered semantic commonalities of evaluation literature and, in accordance with the context and subject of evaluation, the desired evaluation approach and model of supporting policy for knowledge-based companies and institutions was presented.
Implications: formulating quantitative, specific, and measurable objectives for supporting policy in knowledge-based companies and institutions is the suggestion of this research.
Keywords: Policy Making, Policy Evaluation, Theme Analysis, Supporting Knowledge-Based Companies and Institutions and Commercialization Innovations and Invention Law.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Macro-system development
Received: Dec 11 2024 | Accepted: May 13 2025
Received: Dec 11 2024 | Accepted: May 13 2025
References
1. Abedi Jafari, H., Taslimi, M. S., Faghihi, A., & Sheikhzadeh, M. (2011). Content and content network analysis: a simple and efficient method for explaining patterns in qualitative data. Strategic Management Thought (Management Thought), 5(2). 151-198. (in Persian)
2. Ahmadi Shapourabadi M., & Mottaghi S. L. (2022). Pathology and Monitoring of Rural Development Policies in Development Plans: Lessons for Developing Rural Development Executive Policies in the Seventh Development Plan. Journal of Management and Development Process. 35(3), 129-164. (in Persian) [DOI:10.52547/jmdp.35.3.129]
3. Alipour, H., Mamandi Q., & Rahnavard R. (2020). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Public-Private Partnership Policy in Iran's Public Sector. Journal of Management and Development Process. 33(2), 129-154. (in Persian) [DOI:10.52547/jmdp.33.2.129]
4. Alkin, M.C. (2011). What is the organizational, social, and political context? Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5. Alvani, S.M., & Sharifzadeh, F. (2014). The Process of Public Policy-Making. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University Press (RA). (in Persian)
6. Ashtarian, K., & Emami Meybodi, R. (2014). Organizing the Evaluation of Public Policies in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Political Science, 10(2), 26-35. (in Persian)
7. Babbie, E.R. (2007). The practice of social research. Nelson Education.
8. Batsuuri, G. (2016). Foreign Investment Policy Implementation Effectiveness: A Case Study from Mongolia. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(3), 309-320.
9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
10. Brousselle, A., & Buregeya, J.M. (2018). Theory-based evaluations: Framing the existence of a new theory in evaluation and the rise of the 5th generation. Evaluation, 24(2), 153-168. [DOI:10.1177/1356389018765487]
11. Candido Carlos, J.F., & Sergio, P.S. (2019). Implementation obstacles and strategy implementation failure. Baltic Journal of Management.
12. Calidoni Lundberg, F. (2006). Evaluation definitions, methods and models. Working paper, Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.
13. De Francesco, F., & Pattyn, V. (2021). Policy evaluation styles. In: M. Howlett & J. Tosun (Eds.) the Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles. London: Routledge. Preprint Version. [DOI:10.4324/9780429286322-41]
14. Dunn, W.N. (2012). Public policy analysis, Pearson Education Inc.
15. Emami Meybodi, R. (2015). Policy Evaluation; Conceptual Disorder? Public Policy Quarterly, 1(3), 21-32. (in Persian)
16. Faghihi, A., & Alizadeh, M. (2005). Validity in Qualitative Research. Management Culture, 3(9). 5-19. (in Persian)
17. Fitzpatrick, J.L., James, R., Sanders, & Blaine R.W. (2011). Program Evaluation, Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, Pearson Education.
18. Ganjipour, S. R., Hadi Peikani, M., Eteabarian Khorasgani, A., & Gholizadeh, A. (2021). Presenting a Model for Evaluating Education Policies with a Network Governance Approach in Iran. Bimonthly Scientific-Research Journal of a New Approach to Educational Management, 12(5), 17-29. (in Persian)
19. Ghazinoory, S., & Farazkish, M. (2018). National Assessment Model of Science, Technology and Innovation Based on Efficiency, Effectiveness and Utility Indicators. Journal of Strategic Studies on Public Policy, 8(27), 205-229. (in Persian)
20. Ghahramannavasi, F., & Shaygan, S. (2023). Identifying and Ranking Factors Affecting the Implementation of Policy Making to Reduce Inequality and Equitable Income Distribution. New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 7(89), 960-984. (in Persian)
21. Gholipour, R. (2014). Organizational Decision Making and Public Policy Making. 6th Edition, Tehran: Samt Publications. (in Persian)
22. Greene, J.C. (2005). Context. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 82-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23. Hojjatpour, S., Danesh Fard, K.A., Taban, M., & Amirnejad, Q. (2019). Presenting a Model for Successful Evaluation of the Public Policies of the Social Security Organization Based on Professional Ethics. Quarterly Journal of Ethical Research, 10(37), 1-18. (in Persian)
24. Hasangholipour, H., Amiri, M., & Pour-Ezzat, A-A. (2017). Developing an Evaluation Model for Effective Faculty Retention Policy in Higher Education. Public Administration, 9(3), 489-516. (in Persian)
25. Hasanifar, A., & Amiri Parian, F. (2014). Discourse Analysis as a Method. Contemporary Political Essays, 5(1), 49-67. (in Persian)
26. Kamali, Y., Sheikhzadeh Joshani, S., & Ahmadinejad, F. (2019). Implementing Public Policies: Providing Criteria for Successful Implementation of Policies. Scientific-Research Quarterly Journal of Public Policy, 253-275. (in Persian)
27. Keshwarian Azad, R., Etebarian Khorasgani, A., Hadi Peikani, M., & Shahnooshi, M. (2021). Presenting a Native Model for Implementing Judicial Policies: Using the Application of Content Analysis and Fuzzy Delphi Approach. Journal of Public Policy in Management, 12(42), 1-29. (in Persian)
28. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. Sage publications.
29. Lincolne, Y. S. Guba E. G. (1985). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturdistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233-252. [DOI:10.1007/BF02765185]
30. Monavvarian, A. (2015). Implementation and Evaluation of Public Policy. Tehran: Mehraban Book Publication. (in Persian)
31. Maxwell, J.A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
32. Memarzadeh Tehran, G. R., Mirsepasi, N., & Jalili, S. (2011). Presenting a Model for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Implementation of the Public Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Field of Health and Treatment. Quarterly Journal of Public Management Mission, 19-31. (in Persian)
33. Mohammadi, M. (2018). Designing a Model for Evaluating Tax Policies in Iran: A Case Study of Value Added Tax Policy. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Accounting and Management, Allameh Tabatabaei University. (in Persian)
34. Nyhagen, G.M., Bleiklie, I., & Hope, K. (2017) Policy Instruments in European Universities: Implementation of Higher Education Policies. In: Bleiklie I. Enders J. Lepori B. (eds) Managing Universities. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-53865-5]
35. Pour Ezzat, A. A., & Seyed Rezaei, M. (2018). Evaluating the Performance of the Government and Governance. Third Edition, Tehran: Samat Publications. (in Persian)
36. Siddique, W. (2016). Critical success factors affecting e-government policy implementation in Pakistan. E Journal of E Democracy and Open Government, 8(1), 102-126. [DOI:10.29379/jedem.v8i1.398]
37. Shahsavari, H. R., Taheri Goodarzi, H., & Kameli, M. J. (2022). Identifying the components and indicators of the industrial policy evaluation model with the approach of production boom in the cluster of small and medium-sized businesses. Quarterly Journal of the Iranian Management Sciences Association, 17(66), 168-145. (in Persian)
38. Shokri, Z., Danaei Fard, H., Khairgoo, M., & Fani, A.A. (2018). How to evaluate the quality of public policies in Iran: An exploratory study based on mixed methodology. Scientific-Research Quarterly Journal of Government Organizations Management, 6(2), (p.22), 79-94. (in Persian)
39. Soltani, A.M., Tabatabaeian, S.H., Hanafizadeh, P., & Soofi, J.B. (2011). An evaluation scheme for nanotechnology policies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 7303-7312. [DOI:10.1007/s11051-011-0584-8]
40. SoltaniGord Faramarzi, A.M. (2011). An Evaluation Model for Nanotechnology Policymaking in Iran. PhD Thesis, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University. (in Persian)
41. Stufflebeam, D.L., & Coryn, C.L. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. John Wiley & Sons.
42. Vaezi, R., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). A Model for Evaluating Public Policies in Iran (Study of Value Added Tax Policy). Perspectives on Public Administration, 29, 47-72. (in Persian)
43. Vedung, E. (2010). Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation, 16(3), 263-277. [DOI:10.1177/1356389010372452]
44. Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315127767]
45. Vo, A.T. (2013). Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature. Evaluation and Program Planning, 38, 44-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.013] [PMID]
46. Yahyai Ilei, A. (2011). What is discourse analysis? Public Relations Research, 10(60), 58-64. (in Persian)
47. Yavari, V. (2012). Designing a conceptual model of organizational performance management for the Endowment and Charity Affairs Organization. PhD thesis. Faculty of Accounting and Management, Allameh Tabatabaei University (RA). (in Persian)
48. Yin, R. (2014). Case studies in social research. Translated by Houshang Nayebi. Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (in Persian)
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
