Volume 35, Issue 3 (Autumn 2022)                   JMDP 2022, 35(3): 165-195 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Nasiri H, Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi M, Zaker-Salehi G, Abolghasemi M. Analysis of predicted interactions of science and technology stakeholders in upstream laws and documents. JMDP 2022; 35 (3) :165-195
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4494-en.html
1- Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. Iran.
2- Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. , M-Yamani@sbu.ac.ir
3- Department of Comparative Studies and Innovation in Higher Education, Institute of Higher Education Research and Planning, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (889 Views)
Purpose: : The stakeholders of science and technology, like other areas of public policy, have an important role in the success and failure of policies by influencing and being influenced by policies. The research was conducted with the aim of analyzing the anticipated interactions of the stakeholders of science and technology in the upstream documents.
Methodology: The research is an applied research from the point of view of the goal and thematic analysis from the point of view of the data collection method. For this purpose, among the upstream documents, eleven documents were selected and analyzed in the four dimensions of stakeholder identification, type, purpose and method of stakeholder interaction.
Findings: In the analysis, stakeholders in four sections; Government, private, individuals and civil society were categorized, and the beneficiaries of the public sector had the largest share. Stakeholder interaction is predicted in seven types, and "institution-to-institution" interaction was the most frequent . The objectives of stakeholder interactions are foreseen in fifteen themes, the most important of which were "Development of science and technology" and "Strengthening interactions between stakeholders". Stakeholder interaction methods were introduced in the form of ten themes, among which "development of incentive mechanisms" and "creation of cooperation networks" were introduced as important methods of interaction.
Originality/ value: : For the first time, the research has taken a comprehensive look at the issue of stakeholder interactions, which, in addition to identifying the stakeholders, has determined how the stakeholders interact, the purpose and the modes of their interaction.
Full-Text [PDF 1475 kb]   (284 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research |
Received: Jun 30 2022 | Accepted: Nov 07 2022 | ePublished: Mar 13 2023

References
1. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179-196. [DOI:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001]
2. Ahmadinejad, F., Kamali, Y., & Sheikhzadeh Joshani, S. (2021). Challenges of Development Policies Implementation in Iran: A Thematic Analysis. Management and Development Process, 34(2), 29-62. [http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4076-fa.html] [DOI:10.52547/jmdp.34.2.29]
3. Asadifard, R., & Mazarei, S. H. (2019). Analyzing the Intra-Network Relationships of the Members of Science and Technology Collaborative Networks Using Social Networks Analysis (Case of Study: Iran Nanotechnology Laboratory Network). Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 5(1), 117-145. [https://jppolicy.ut.ac.ir/article_71578.html?lang=en]
4. Biegelbauer, P., & Hansen, J. (2011). Democratic Theory and Citizen Participation: Democracy Models in the Evaluation of Public Participation in Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 589-597. [DOI:10.3152/030234211X13092649606404]
5. Boussaguet, L., & Dehousse, R. (2009). Too Big to Fly? A Review of the First EU Citizens' Conferences. Science and Public Policy, 36(10), 777-789. [DOI:10.3152/030234209X481996]
6. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48. [DOI:10.5465/amp.2007.27895338]
7. Durant, J. (1999). Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public Understanding of Science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313-319. [DOI:10.3152/147154399781782329]
8. Dutrénit, G., & Suárez, M. (2018). Involving Stakeholders in Policymaking: Tensions Emerging from a Public Dialogue with Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurs. Science and Public Policy, 45(3), 338-350. [DOI:10.1093/scipol/scx043]
9. Farasatkhah, M., & Maniee, R. (2015). Effective Factors on Faculty Participation in Higher Education Policy Making and University Planning. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 20(4), 29-53. [http://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article-1-2496-fa.html]
10. Gagné, V., Berthelot, S., & Coulmont, M. (2022). Stakeholder Engagement Practices and Impression Management. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(2), 217-241. [DOI:10.1108/JGR-03-2021-0036]
11. Ghazinoory, S. S., Mohammadi, S., & Abdi, M. (2013). Improvement of QFD Process by Stakeholder Analysis, an Efficient Method in National Strategic Planning Process Case-Study: The Comprehensive Scientific Map of IRAN. Public Management Researches, 6(20), 35-56. [https://jmr.usb.ac.ir/article_1355.html?lang=en]
12. Gonçalves, M. E. (2017). Transparency, Openness and Participation in Science Policy Processes. In Interfaces between Science and Society (pp. 176-184): Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781351280440-11]
13. Greger, V., Balta, D., Wolf, P., & Krcmar, H. (2014). Analyzing Stakeholders in Complex E-Government Projects: Towards a Stakeholder Interaction Model. Paper Presented at the Electronic Government: 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Dublin, Ireland, September 1-3, 2014. Proceedings 13.
14. Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44(2), 167-184. [DOI:10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x]
15. Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97-124. [DOI:10.5840/beq20132314]
16. Hayati, M., Moshbaki, A., Khurshidi, A., & Mortazavi, M. (2018). Interaction with the Strategic Stakeholders via Interactive Model. Journal of Development & Evolution Mnagement, 1397(33), 1-15. [https://jdem.qazvin.iau.ir/article_543143.html?lang=en]
17. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
18. Joss, S. (1999). Public Participation in Science and Technology Policy-and Decision-Making-Ephemeral Phenomenon or Lasting Change? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 290-293. [DOI:10.3152/147154399781782338]
19. Kamali, Y. (2016). Methodological Study of Stakeholder Analysis and its Application in Public Policy-Making. Management and Development Process, 28(4), 3-30. [http://jmdp.ir/article-1-1811-fa.html]
20. Karimloo, R., & Zakery, A. (2021). Analysing the Interactions between Key Stakeholders in a Regional Innovation System (Case Study: Rab-e-Rashidi Special Region of Science and Technology). Journal of Management Improvement, 14(4), 83-112. [http://www.behboodmodiriat.ir/article_120056.html?lang=en]
21. Khalifeh Soltani, H., Faghihi, A., & Vaezi, R. (2013). The Role of Scientific Associations in Scientific Public Policies. Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 6(24), 89-112. [http://journal.iams.ir/article_113.html?lang=en]
22. Khastar, H. (2009). A Method for Calculating Coding Reliability in Qualitative Research Interviews. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 15(58), 161-174. [http://method.rihu.ac.ir/article_418.html?lang=en]
23. Le Feuvre, M., Medway, D., Warnaby, G., Ward, K., & Goatman, A. (2016). Understanding Stakeholder Interactions in Urban Partnerships. Cities, 52(1), 55-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.017]
24. Llerena, P., & Matt, M. (2005). Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy: Theory and Practice: Springer Science & Business Media. [DOI:10.1007/b137610]
25. Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2019). Policy-Mix Evaluation: Governance Challenges from New Place-Based Innovation Policies. Research Policy, 48(10), 103612. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.010]
26. Majidpour, M., & Namdarian, L. (2016). Identifying Barriers to Science and Technology Policy Implementation in Iran. Innovation Management Journal, 4(4), 31-60. [http://www.nowavari.ir/article_15346.html?lang=en]
27. Mazarei, S. H., Pakzad Bonab, M., & Mohseni Kiasari, M. (2019). Requiem for Article; Eight Generations of Authentic Articles in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Rahyaft, 28(72), 19-32. [https://rahyaft.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13741.html?lang=en]
28. Mejlgaard, N. (2009). The Trajectory of Scientific Citizenship in Denmark: Changing Balances between Public Competence and Public Participation. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 483-496. [DOI:10.3152/030234209X460962]
29. Montazer, G., kalantari, e., & Qazinoori, S. S. (2019). Theory of Policy Networks: An Attitude for Explainingthe Problems of the Institutional Structure of Science and Technology Policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamic Revolution Studies, 16(58), 7-32. [https://rahyaft.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13741.html?lang=en]
30. Pahlavanian, M., Shirkhodaie, M., & Razeghi, N. (2021). Theoretical Processing of Citizen Science Projects Implementation in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 14(2), 19-34. [https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13894.html?lang=en]
31. Powell, M. C., & Colin, M. (2008). Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would It Really Take? Science Communication, 30(1), 126-136. [DOI:10.1177/1075547008320520]
32. Rowley, T. J. (2017). The Power of and in Stakeholder Networks. In Stakeholder Management (Vol. 1, pp. 101-122): Emerald Publishing Limited. [DOI:10.1108/S2514-175920170000005]
33. Schedler, P., & Glastra, F. (2001). Communicating Policy in Late Modern Society: On the Boundaries of Interactive Policy Making. Policy & Politics, 29(3), 337-349. [DOI:10.1332/0305573012501387]
34. Shaebani, M., & Razeghi, N. (2020). Scientific Citizenship: A Study of the Understanding and Public Engagement of Science and Technology. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 13(2), 41-53. [https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13811.html]
35. Spaapen, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing 'Productive Interactions' in Social Impact Assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218. [DOI:10.3152/095820211X12941371876742]
36. Stokkom, B. V. (2005). Deliberative Group Dynamics: Power, Status and Affect in Interactive Policy Making. Policy & Politics, 33(3), 387-409. [DOI:10.1332/0305573054325701]
37. Van Woerkum, C. (1999). Interactive Policy-Making: The Principles. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 6(4), 199-212. [DOI:10.1080/13892240085300031]
38. Varumo, L., Paloniemi, R., & Kelemen, E. (2020). Challenges and Solutions in Developing Legitimate Online Participation for EU Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Policies. Science and Public Policy, 47(4), 571-580. [DOI:10.1093/scipol/scaa036]
39. Wagner Mainardes, E., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A Model for Stakeholder Classification and Stakeholder Relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861-1879. [DOI:10.1108/00251741211279648]
40. Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public Engagement with Science-Origins, Motives and Impact in Academic Literature and Science Policy. PloS One, 16(7), e0254201. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0254201] [PMID] [PMCID]
41. Wynne, B. (2007). Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political-Conceptual Category Mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 99-110. [DOI:10.1215/s12280-007-9004-7]
42. Xiaodong, L., Xiaoping, L., & Feng, F. (2019). Research on Citizen Participation in the Implementation of Public Policy in Big Data Age. Paper Presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. [DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1168/3/032013]
43. Zhao, Y., Fautz, C., Hennen, L., Srinivas, K. R., & Li, Q. (2015). Public Engagement in the Governance of Science and Technology. Science and Technology Governance and Ethics: A Global Perspective from Europe, India and China, 39-51. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-14693-5_4]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Management and Development Process

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb