Dimensions and Indicators for Evaluating Science and Technology Policies based on The Policy-Making Cycle

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Assistant Professor of Policy evaluation and Monitoring of Science, Technology, and Innovation, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jppolicy.2025.105205

Abstract

The purpose of policy evaluation is to examine, analyze, and assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and outcomes of government policies and programs. Despite the adoption of various policies in the fields of science, technology, and innovation, most scientific sectors in the country currently lack a systematic structure, process, or model for evaluating and revising these policies. This study aimed to identify and present the dimensions and indicators for evaluating science and technology policies based on the framework of policy-making time phases. The pre-policy phase of policy evaluation included: alignment and needs assessment, financial resources, human resources, infrastructure, stakeholders, feasibility/risk analysis, planning and objectives, as well as laws and regulations. The concurrent policy phase encompassed: financial and budgetary performance, outputs and outcomes, processes, collaboration and participation, risk and flexibility, capacity building, and social impacts. Finally, the post-policy phase covered economic impacts, social impacts, scientific and technological advancement, educational and academic development, environmental effects, international standing, policy learning, and improvement. Based on the findings of the study, policy recommendations were proposed.

Keywords

References

  1. Bhutto, A., Rashdi, P. I. S., & Abro, Q. (2012). Indicators for science and technology policy in Pakistan: Entering the science, technology and innovation paradigm. Science and Public Policy, 39, 1-12.
  2. Booshehri, A. and Bagheri, A. (2016). Science and Technology Policy Assessment (Case Study on Elite Conscripts Working in Research Projects). Journal of Improvement Management, 10(3), 107-129. {In Persian}
  3. Brooks, H. (1980). Science indicators and science policy. Scientometrics, 2(5), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02095075
  4. Çağan, S. (2017). Türki̇ye de 1980 sonrasi dönemde uygulanan bi̇li̇m ve teknoloji̇ poli̇ti̇ka belgeleri̇ni̇n etki̇nli̇ği̇ üzeri̇ne bi̇r i̇nceleme. The Journal of International Social Research, 10(53), 708–717. https://doi.org/10.17719/JISR.20175334159
  5. Chudnovsky, D. (1999). Science and technology policy and the National Innovation System in Argentina. Cepal Review, 1999, 157-176.
  6. Cozzens, S. (2007). Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy, 34, 85-94.
  7. Cozzens, S. E., Bobb, K., & Bortagaray, I. (2002). Evaluating the distributional consequences of science and technology policies and programs. In Research Evaluation (Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 101–107). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776899
  8. Emami Meybodi, R. (2015). Comparative Analyses of Policy Evaluation Systems; Principles and Rules. Political Science, 11(1), 45-68. {In Persian}
  9. Hage, J., Jordan, G., & Mote, J. (2007). A theory-based innovation systems framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of research, part two: macro indicators and policy interventions. In Science and Public Policy (Vol. 34, Issue 10, pp. 731–741). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207x265385
  10. Hajizadeh, E.; Asghari, M. (1400). Statistical Methods and Analyses with a View to Research Methodology in Biological and Health Sciences. Tehran: Jihad Daneshgaghi. Third Edition. {In Persian}
  11. Hall, B. H. (2002). The Assessment: Technology Policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18, 1-9.
  12. Joss, S., & Brownlea, A. (1999). Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy- and decision-making in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 26, 321-330.
  13. Lemola, T. (2003). Country report: transformation of Finnish science and technology policy. Science & Technology Studies, 16(1), 52-67.
  14. Masinda, M. T. (1998). National systems of innovation: implications on science and technology policies in sub-Saharan Africa.
  15. Möhring, N., Huber, R., & Finger, R. (2023). Combining ex-ante and ex-post assessments to support the sustainable transformation of agriculture: The case of Swiss pesticide-free wheat production. Q Open, 3(3), qoac022.
  16. Mustangimah, M., Putera, P. B., Zulhamdani, M., Handoyo, S., & Rahayu, S. (2021). Evaluation of the Indonesia national strategic policy of science and technology development. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(3), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstpm-04-2020-0079
  17. Norouzi, A., Parsaei- Mohammadi, P., Geraei, E., & Zare-Farashbandi, F. (2024). Designing a Framework for Evaluating the Scientific Productions. In International Journal of Preventive Medicine (Vol. 15). Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_162_24
  18. OECD (2019), Budgeting and Public Expenditures in OECD Countries 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307957-en.
  19. OECD (2023). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023: Enabling Transitions in Times of Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en.
  20. Parker, M., Acland, A., Armstrong, H. J., Bellingham, J. R., Bland, J., Bodmer, H. C., Burall, S., Castell, S., Chilvers, J., Cleevely, D., Cope, D., Costanzo, L., Dolan, J. A., Doubleday, R., Feng, W. Y., Godfray, H., Good, D., Grant, J., Green, N., ... & Sutherland, W. J. (2014). Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning. PLoS ONE, 9.
  21. Patton, C., Sawicki, D., & Clark, J. (2015). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Routledge.
  22. Qiu, J., Cao, J., Gu, X., Ge, Z., Wang, Z., & Liang, Z. (2023). Design of an Evaluation System for Disruptive Technologies to Benefit Smart Cities. In Sustainability (Vol. 15, Issue 11, p. 9109). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119109
  23. Sattiraju, V. K., & Janodia, M. D. (2023). Analysis of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies of India from 1958 to 2020. In Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management (Vol. 15, Issue 6, pp. 1691–1708). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstpm-02-2022-0030
  24. Segone, M. (Ed.). (2008). Bridging the gap: The role of Monitoring and Evaluation in evidence-based policy-making. UNICEF, Geneva.: UNICEF, Geneva.
  25. Shodiyeva, N. S. (2022). Indicators and Measures as Policy Tools (pp. 185–196). Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003163954-19
  26. Soltani, A. M. and Tabatabaeian, S. H. (2019). Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Evaluation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 561-578. {In Persian}
  27. Steen, J. V. (1995). S&T indicators in science policy: how can they matter? Research Evaluation, 5, 161-166.
  28. Tabatabaiyan, H.; Fateh-Rad, M.; Shojaei, M. H.; Soltanzadeh, J. (2012). Evaluating Science, Technology and Innovation Policies. Tehran: National Science Policy Research Center. {In Persian}
  29. Wakhungu, J. (2001). Science, Technology, and Public Policy in Africa: A Framework for Action. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21, 246-252.
  30. Yao, J., & Peng, H. (2016). Empirical Research on Policy Evaluation of Innovation of Science and Technology in Shanghai. In DEStech Transactions on Environment, Energy and Earth Science (Issue seeie). DEStech Publications. https://doi.org/10.12783/dteees/seeie2016/4530
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 11, Issue 4
December 2025
Pages 150-169

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics