Unveiling a Governance Analysis Framework for Basic Research in Iran

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Basic science, as a cornerstone of the national innovation system, has long been at the center of debates on which management approaches are most effective for this activity due to its specific nature that distinguishes it from other types of research. For example, given the long time lag between investment in basic research and the manifestation of economic and social effects from its results, many organizations, especially in the private sector, are reluctant to invest in it. However, insufficient support for basic science becomes a brake on further innovative development and creates the risk of stagnation. This article contributes to the development of these discussions. It considers key concepts of research governance with an emphasis on their application and achieved results in the Iranian context. A comprehensive theoretical framework for analyzing the processes of basic research management in Iran is developed, which can be adapted to similar contexts worldwide. Strategies for improving the alignment of needs and priorities at different funding levels, both operationally and strategically, are proposed. It is concluded that improving the governance of basic science can not only increase the economic returns from research activities, but also bring them into line with societal needs.

About the authors

Z. Karimmian

Islamic Azad University

Author for correspondence.
Email: zohreh.karimmian@iau.ac.ir

M. Zamanian

University of Tehran

Email: zamanyan@ut.ac.ir

References

  1. Akcigit U., Hanley D., Serrano-Velarde N. (2021) Back to basics: Basic research spillovers, innovation policy, and growth. The Review of Economic Studies, 88(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa061.
  2. Al-Mawali A., Al-Harrasi A., Jayapal S., Al-Kharusi H., Al-Rashdi M., Pinto A. (2020) Health Research Priority Setting in Oman: Towards better utilization of the available resources. Journal of Contemporary Medical Sciences, 6(3), 126-139. https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v6i3.791.
  3. Arora A., Belenzon S., Patacconi A., Suh J. (2020) The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 20, 705638. https://doi.org/10.1086/705638.
  4. Arora A., Gambardella A. (1994) The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Research Policy, 23(5), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01003-X.
  5. Arrow K.J. (1962) The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952.
  6. Beck S., Bergenholtz C., Bogers M. et al. (2022) The Open Innovation in Science Research Field: A Collaborative Conceptualisation Approach. Industry and Innovation, 29(2), 136-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1792274.
  7. Bornmann L. (2013) What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for information science and technology, 64(2), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803.
  8. Bozeman B., Youtie J. (2017) Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives. Research Policy, 46, 1387-1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.003.
  9. Broekel T., Graf H. (2010) Structural properties of cooperation networks in Germany: From basic to applied research (Jena Economic Research Paper Series, 2010-078), Jena: Friedrich Schiller University Jena.
  10. Brown C.G. (1985) The technological relevance of basic research. In: Transforming Scientific Ideas into Innovations: Science Policies in the United States and Japan, Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, pp. 113-134.
  11. Budin-Ljøsne I., Ayuandini S., Baillergeau E., Bröer C., Helleve A., Klepp K.I., Kysnes B., Lien N., Luszczynska A., Nesrallah S., Rito A., Rutter H., Samdal O., Savona N., Veltkamp G. (2023) Ethical considerations in engaging young people in European obesity prevention research: The CO-CREATE experience. Obesity Reviews, 24(S1), e13518. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13518.
  12. Budin-Ljøsne I., Friedman B.B., Baaré W.F.C., Bartrés-Faz D., Carver R.B., Drevon C.A., Ebmeier K.P., Fjell A.M., Ghisletta P., Henson R.N., Kievit R., Madsen K.S., Nawijn L., Suri S., Solé-Padullés C., Walhovd K.B., Zsoldos E. (2023) Stakeholder engagement in European brain research: Experiences of the Lifebrain consortium. Health Expectations, 26(3), 1318-1326. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13747.
  13. Caminati M. (2009) A knowledge based approach to collaboration in basic research (MPRA Paper 18864), Munich: University Library of Munich.
  14. Ceccagnoli M., Lee Y.N., Walsh J.P. (2024) Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness. Research Policy, 53(1), 104912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104912.
  15. Chesbrough H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  16. Chubb J., Reed M.S. (2018) The politics of research impact: Academic perceptions of the implications for research funding, motivation and quality. British Politics, 13, 295-311. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0077-9.
  17. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. (1989) Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763.
  18. Dooly Z., Duane A., O’Driscoll A. (2022) Creating and Managing EU Funded Research Networks: An Exploratory Case. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 20(1), pp. 1-20 https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2556.
  19. Faust K., Wasserman S.W. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Gassler H., Polt W., Rammer C. (2007) Priority Setting in Research & Technology Policy: Historical Developments and Recent Trends, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  21. Gersbach H., Schneider M.T. (2015) On the global supply of basic research. Journal of Monetary Economics, 75(3), 123-137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2015.02.004.
  22. Gersbach H., Schetter U., Schneider M.T. (2018) Economic rationales for investments in science (CER-ETH Working Paper 18/298), Zurich: ETHZ.
  23. Ghazinoory S., Aghaei P. Differences between policy assessment & policy evaluation; a case study on supportive policies for knowledge-based firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120801.
  24. Ghazinoory S., Safari H. (2022) Two competing views on the concept of scientific authority: Explanation and evaluation. Rahyaft, 32(3), 21-32.
  25. Ghazinoory S., Shokatian T. (2021) Policy Making of Basic Science and Research, Tehran: National Research Institute For Science Policy Of Iran.
  26. Guida G. (2018) An Analysis of Scientific Research Performance in Italy: Evaluation Criteria and Public Funding. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 10(7), 1-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v10n7p45.
  27. Hao T., Aruhan H.E., Jun F., Kaiyue G. (2023) Practice and Thinking of Agency Level Budget Performance Evaluation Pilot in Chinese Academy of Sciences. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 38(2), 211-218.
  28. Heitmann F., Halbe J., Pahl-Wostl C. (2019) Integrated and participatory design of sustainable development strategies on multiple governance levels. Sustainability, 11(21), 5931. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215931.
  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw087.
  30. Hicks D. (2012) Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007.
  31. Hu X., Zhang Z., Lv C. (2023) The impact of technological transformation on basic research results: The moderating effect of intellectual property protection. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 8(4), 100443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100443.
  32. Ito Y., Nagano H. (2011) Collaboration between Public Institution and Hospital-Japanese styled collaborative model for promotion of innovation in life sciences (Working Paper 10-36), Tokyo: National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
  33. Jiang C., Li S., Shen Q. (2024) Science and technology evaluation reform and universities’ innovation performance. Technology in Society, 78, 102614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102614.
  34. Karimmian Z., Mohammadi M., Ghazinoory S.S., Zolfagharzadeh M.M. (2021) Analysis of Policy Network Actors in Policy Implementation: A Case Study of Government Support Policies in Customs, Taxation, and Financial Provision in the Law on Support for Knowledge-Based Companies. Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 11(39), 22-45.
  35. Karimmian Z., Mohammadi M., Zolfagharzadeh M.M., Ghazinoory S.S. (2019) Historical Evolution in STI Policy-making in Iran: A Network Governance Approach. Improvement Management, 13(2, 98-129.
  36. Larivière V., Macaluso B., Mongeon P., Siler K., Sugimoto C.R. (2018) Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research. PloS One, 13(8), e0202120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202120.
  37. Laverde-Rojas H., Correa J.C. (2019) Can scientific productivity impact the economic complexity of countries? Scientometrics, 120, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03118-8
  38. Marchiori C., Minelli E. (2023) Talent, basic research and growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 213, 105721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2023.105721.
  39. Mayernik M. (2017) Open data: Accountability and transparency. Big Data and Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718853.
  40. Meissner D. (2019) Public-Private Partnership Models for Science, Technology, and Innovation Cooperation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10, 1341-1361. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13132-015-0310-3
  41. Mulligan J., Conteh L. (2016) Global priorities for research and the relative importance of different research outcomes: An international Delphi survey of malaria research experts. Malaria Journal, 15, 585. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-016-1628-4
  42. Nelson R.R. (1959) The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297-306. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1827448
  43. OECD (2015) Frascati Manual 2015. Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, Paris: OECD.
  44. Pavitt K. (1991) Key Characteristics of the Large Innovating Firm. British Journal of Management, 2(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1991.tb00014.x
  45. Pielke R. (2012) Basic research as a political symbol. Minerva, 50(3), 339-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9207-5
  46. Pisano G.P. (2015) You Need an Innovation Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), pp. 44-54.
  47. Plucknett D.L., Smith N.J.H. (2005) The potential of collaborative research networks in developing countries, Rome: FAO.
  48. Robson M.T. (1993) Federal funding and the level of private expenditure on basic research. Southern Economic Journal, 60(1), 63-71.
  49. Rosenberg N. (1982) Inside the black box: Technology and economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Rosenberg N. (1990) Why do firms do basic research? Research Policy, 19(2), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90046-9
  51. Rosenberg N. (2010) Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? In: Studies on science and the innovation process: Selected works of Nathan Rosenberg (ed. N. Rosenberg), Stanford, CA: Stanford University, pp. 225-234.
  52. Salo A., Liesiö J. (2006) A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 5(01), 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622006001873
  53. Salter A.J., Martin B.R. (2003) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review, Brighton (UK): University of Sussex.
  54. Shaw S., Boynton P.M., Greenhalgh T. (2005) Research governance: Where did it come from, what does it mean? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(11), 496-502. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.98.11.496
  55. Shi Y., Wang D., Zhang Z. (2022) Categorical evaluation of scientific research efficiency in Chinese universities: basic and applied research. Sustainability, 14(8), 4402. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084402
  56. Shokatian T., Ghazinoory S. (2019) Challenges of Policy Making in the Realm of Basic Research. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 347-361.
  57. Shokatian T., Ghazinoory S. (2020) Formulating a Framework for Prioritizing Basic Research for Government Support. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.22059/jppolicy.2020.77614
  58. Shokatian T., Ghazinoory S. (2021) Policy Making for Science and Basic Research, Tehran: National Center for Science Policy Research.
  59. Shokatian T., Ghazinoory S., Nasri S., Safari H. (2024) A mathematical model for managing national portfolio of basic research projects. Journal of Modelling in Management (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jm2-12-2023-0310
  60. Soler-Gallart M., Flecha R. (2022) Researchers’ Perceptions About Methodological Innovations in Research Oriented to Social Impact: Citizen Evaluation of Social Impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211067654.
  61. Timulak L. (2009) Meta-analysis of qualitative studies: A tool for reviewing qualitative research findings in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 591-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802477989
  62. Vignola R., McDaniels T.L., Scholz R.W. (2013) Governance structures for ecosystem-based adaptation: Using policy-network analysis to identify key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.004
  63. Wiesbaden G.V. (2015) You need to integrate research and corporate practice. Controlling and Management Review, 59, 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12176-015-0605-z

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».