IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v122y2017icp119-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing a national science and technology evaluation system based on a new typology of international practices

Author

Listed:
  • Ghazinoory, Sepehr
  • Farazkish, Mahdieh
  • Montazer, Gholam Ali
  • Soltani, Behzad

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a new classification of national science and technology (S&T) evaluation systems. This evaluation system will consider five analytical dimensions extracted from international practices consisting of the following: evaluation system function, evaluation interactions framework, evaluation organization, evaluation model of funding, and process of result evaluation. The classification proposed in the present paper is intended for application in detecting the current position of and expanding suitable evaluation systems based on the countries' native context as a national analysis tool (especially for late-comer countries). Therefore, in the case of Iran, we reviewed both the existing and optimized modes of national science and technology evaluation systems. The results show that the existing evaluation system in Iran is not optimized, so evolutionary changes are required for obtaining the desired system goals. Policy results of the mentioned classification as well as national science and technology evaluation systems are considered. In general, it appears that such a descriptive analytical typology can be applicable for all countries. However, the classification is specifically applied for designing an optimized S&T evaluation system in Iran.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Farazkish, Mahdieh & Montazer, Gholam Ali & Soltani, Behzad, 2017. "Designing a national science and technology evaluation system based on a new typology of international practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 119-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:119-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517305127
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katharine Barker, 2007. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-12, March.
    2. Sepehr Ghazinoory & Saber Mirzaei & Soroush Ghazinoori, 2009. "A model for national planning under new roles for government: Case study of the National Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 241-249, April.
    3. Alberto Marradi, 1990. "Classification, typology, taxonomy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 129-157, May.
    4. Sepehr Ghazinoory, 2009. "A day in the life of an Iranian S&T policy researcher," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(10), pages 809-811, December.
    5. Elman, Colin, 2005. "Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 293-326, April.
    6. Andrew Jordan, 2008. "The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(1), pages 17-33, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vennesson Pascal, 2010. "Military Strategy in the Global Village," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-43, February.
    2. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/15200 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    5. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    7. Wang, Derek D., 2019. "Performance-based resource allocation for higher education institutions in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 66-75.
    8. Peter Scott, 2011. "The University as a Global Institution," Chapters, in: Roger King & Simon Marginson & Rajani Naidoo (ed.), Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Thomas Rixen & Lora Anne Viola, 2015. "Putting path dependence in its place: toward a Taxonomy of institutional change," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 301-323, April.
    10. Rowlinson, Michael & Harvey, Charles & Kelly, Aidan & Morris, Huw & Todeva, Emanuela, 2015. "Accounting for research quality: Research audits and the journal rankings debate," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 2-22.
    11. Benedetto, Lepori & Geuna, Aldo & Veglio, Valerio, 2017. "A Typology of European Universities. Differentiation and resource distribution," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201705, University of Turin.
    12. Russell, Shona L. & Thomson, Ian, 2009. "Analysing the role of sustainable development indicators in accounting for and constructing a Sustainable Scotland," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 225-244.
    13. Holstenkamp, Lars, 2019. "What do we know about cooperative sustainable electrification in the global South? A synthesis of the literature and refined social-ecological systems framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 307-320.
    14. Keune, Hans & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Popa, Florin & Sander, Jacobs & Kampelmann, Stephan & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dufrêne, Marc & Bauler, Tom & Casaer, Jim & Cerulus, Tanya & De Blust, Geert & Denayer, Bar, 2015. "Emerging ecosystem services governance issues in the Belgium ecosystem services community of practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 212-219.
    15. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    16. Gerschewski, Johannes, 2021. "Explanations of Institutional Change: Reflecting on a “Missing Diagonal”," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 115(1), pages 218-233.
    17. Segal, Paul, 2012. "How to spend it: Resource wealth and the distribution of resource rents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 340-348.
    18. Royston, Sarah & Selby, Jan & Shove, Elizabeth, 2018. "Invisible energy policies: A new agenda for energy demand reduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 127-135.
    19. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    20. Sylvia Ward, 2012. "The hierarchical terminology technique: a method to address terminology inconsistency," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 71-87, January.
    21. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 21104, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:119-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.