سازوکار مداخله آزمایشگاه سیاستی در چرخه سیاستگذاری: یک مطالعه موردی در بخش آموزش عالی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار سیاست فناوری و نوآوری، مؤسسه تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران

2 استاد مدیریت فناوری و کارآفرینی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jppolicy.2026.107832

چکیده

سیاستگذاری عمومی در ایران با ناکارآمدی‌های ناشی از الگوهای خطی، متمرکز و غیرمشارکتی مواجه‌ است؛ مسئله‌ای که در آموزش‌عالی، به‌عنوان عرصه‌ای کلیدی در حکمرانی علم‌ و فناوری، به شکاف میان سیاست‌های تدوین‌شده و واقعیت‌های اجرایی انجامیده ‌است. درواکنش، آزمایشگاه‌های سیاستی به‌مثابه ابزارهای نوین حکمرانی مشارکتی امکان بازتعریف مسائل و هم‌آفرینی راهکارها را فراهم می‌کنند. این مقاله با مطالعه‌موردی آزمایشگاه ‌سیاستی مؤسسه تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، با استفاده از چهارچوبی تلفیقی از چرخه‌ سیاستگذاری و مدل REACT و روش تحلیل‌روایت، به تحلیل سازوکار مداخله این نهاد در بازنگری آیین‌نامه ارتقای اعضای هیئت‌علمی می‌پردازد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد، این آزمایشگاه به‌مثابه یک نهاد میانجی ازطریق سازوکارهای تسهیل‌گری، سنتز دانش، گفت‌وگوسازی، اقناع، اجماع و شبکه‌سازی؛ شکاف میان سیاست‌های طراحی‌شده و واقعیت‌های نهادی را کاهش‌ داده و مشروعیت فرایندی سیاستگذاری را ارتقا می‌دهد. درنهایت، پژوهش ضمن تأکید بر ضرورت حمایت نهادی و ادغام آزمایشگاه‌های ‌سیاستی در چرخه‌ سیاستگذاری، الگویی زمینه‌مند برای مداخله نهادهای میانجی ارائه می‌دهد که می‌تواند به بازآفرینی سیاستگذاری و تقویت تاب‌آوری نهادی در آموزش‌عالی ایران بینجامد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مراجع

  1. Ahmadi,H. , Nematollahi,H. and Asadolahidehkordi,E.(2022). Steps of implementation and realization of participatory governance in higher education. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 31(105), 103-135. doi: 10.22054/jmsd.2022.65492.4075
  2. Alvesson,M., & Sköldberg,K.(2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research.
  3. Amirkhani,T., & Hematiyan,F.(2021). Toxic Policy-Making in Iran. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (pp.1-9).Springer,Cham.
  4. Ansell,C., & Gash,A.(2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory,18(4), 543-571.
  5. Asadi louyeh.A, Takian.A, Ahmadi.B, Arab.M, Davoudi kiakalayeh.(2025). Policy Analysis of Institutionalization of the Social Approach to Health in Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.39.66
  6. Attar,S. and khaje naieni,A.(2015). The Analysis of Affecting Factors in Inefficiency of Iran’s Policy Making System. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 1(1),1-20. doi: 10.22059/ppolicy.2015.57149
  7. Bailey,J., & Lloyd,P.(2017). The introduction of design to policymaking: Policy Lab and the UK government. Annual Review of Policy Design, 5(1),1-14.
  8. Bason,C.(2018). Orchestrating co-creation. In Leading Public Sector Innovation (pp. 219-264). Policy Press.
  9. Birkland,T.A. (2019). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.
  10. Blomkamp,E.(2018). The promise of co-design for public policy 1. In Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 59-73).Routledge.
  11. Campos,I., Fuchs,D., Repo,P., Jager,W., Klöckner,C., Wang,S., ... & Živčič,L.(2024). What roles can democracy labs play in co-creating democratic innovations for sustainability?. Socio-Ecological Practice Research,6(4), 367-380.
  12. Denzin,N.K.(2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge.
  13. Dye,T.R. (2017). Understanding public policy, Pearson.
  14. Elken,M.(2024). Collaborative design of governance instruments in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(6),1095-1106.
  15. European Network of Living Labs(ENoLL).(2016). Living Labs as needed instruments for citizen science actions. Positioning paper.
  16. Fung,A.(2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration review, 66, 66-75.
  17. Ghazinoori,S., Nasiri,H., & Aghaei,P.(2021). Policy Labs Concepts, Tools & Applications. National Research Institute for Science Policy: Tehran.{In Persian}
  18. Hayter,E., Morales, M.H (2023). Review: Policy labs and evidence use in education. Jacobs Foundation.
  19. Hood,C.(1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public administration, 69(1), 3-19.
  20. Howlett,M.(2023). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Routledge.
  21. Islamic Parliament Research Center.(2022). A review and pathology report on the faculty promotion system: Policy proposal package for revising the faculty promotion bylaw (2022) [Strategic studies report]. https://rc-demo.majlis.ir/fa/report/show/1744414{In Persian}
  22. Jamali Zavareh, Batoul, Nasr Esfahani, & Nili.(2018). Analysis of the Regulations on the Promotion of Faculty Members: Challenges and Consequences. Iranian Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 79-98. {In Persian}
  23. Kalantari, E.(2024). Scenario Planning as a Policy Laboratory Method: A Case Study of the Institutional Structure of Science and Technology Policy in Iran. Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies, 7(1), 119-146. doi: 10.22034/jipas.2024.380120.1538{In Persian}
  24. Kimbell, L.(2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering policy lab.
  25. Kousari S, Nazarzadeh Zare M. Spoken and unspoken policies regarding the recruitment, promotion, and service compensation of research faculty members in Iran's upstream documents. ihej 2023; 15 (1) : 1{In Persian}
  26. Krogh, A. H.(2024). Policy labs on the fringes: boundary-spanning strategies for enhancing innovation uptake. Policy design and practice, 7(1), 17-32.
  27. Lasswell, H. D.(1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis.
  28. Li, B., Lazell, J., Beltran, M., Kędzia, G., Lima, L. R., Soma, T., ... & Tjahjono, B.(2025). Competing narratives inhibit a circular economy for bio‐based plastic packaging: Insights from a social innovation lab study in Brazil, Canada, Poland and the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(1), 516-554.
  29. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.(1985). Naturalistic Inquiry Vol. 75 Sage. Beverly Hills, CA.
  30. McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., & Lewis, J. M.(2017, June). Everybody else is doing it so why don’t we? Analysing the rise of the policy lab. In 3rd International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP3).
  31. McGann, J. G.(2020). 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report.
  32. Montazer, G. A.(2024). Individual Improvement-Institutional Excellence in the Framework of the Innovation of Scientific Rank Promotion Regulations based on the Logic of Intervention. Rahyaft, 33(4), -. doi: 10.22034/rahyaft.2024.11737.1516{In Persian}
  33. OECD(2015). Innovating the public sector: From ideas to impact. Building Organisational Capacity for Public Sector Innovation.
  34. OECD(2017a), Fostering Innovation in the Public Sector, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270879-en
  35. OECD(2017b), Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges: Working with Change, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279865-en
  36. OECD(2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD, Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
  37. Ojha, H., Regmi, U., Shrestha, K. K., Paudel, N. S., Amatya, S. M., Zwi, A. B., ... & Banjade, M. R. (2020). Improving science-policy interface: Lessons from the policy lab methodology in Nepal's community forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics,114, 101997.
  38. Olejniczak, K., Borkowska-Waszak, S., Domaradzka-Widła, A., & Park, Y. (2020). Policy labs: the next frontier of policy design and evaluation?. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 89-110.
  39. Panahi, F. and Ghasemi, M. H.(2024). Designing A Policy Laboratory Process with A Strategic Foresight Approach. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 17(1), 19-38. doi: 10.22034/jstp.2024.11590.1748
  40. Puttick, R., Baeck, P., & Colligan, P. (2014). The teams and funds making innovation happen in governments around the world. Londres: Nesta & Bloomberg Philantropies.
  41. Riessman,C.K.(2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
  42. Schmidt,V.A.(2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political studies, 61(1), 2-22.
  43. Silva,A.C.D., & Emmendoerfer,M.L.(2023). Innovation labs in South American governments: Congruencies and peculiarities. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 20(03), e220173.
  44. Soleymanzadeh E, Goldasteh Pathology of the regulations for promotion of faculty members from the humanities experts point of view. ihej 2024; 15 (3) :43-67{In Persian}
  45. Suyuthi, A., Mumtahanah, N., & Wahyudi, W. E.(2023). Collaborative-Participatory Model in Education Policy during a Pandemic: Building Collaboration to Bridge the Gap. Al-Hayat: Journal of Islamic Education, 7(2), 559-576.
  46. Tõnurist,, Kattel,R.,& Lember, V.(2017). Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do?. Public Management Review,19(10), 1455-1479.
  47. Unceta,A., Barandiaran,X., & Restrepo,N. (2019). The role of public innovation labs in collaborative governance—the case of the Gipuzkoa lab in the Basque Country, Spain. Sustainability, 11(21), 6103.
  48. Voorberg,W.H., Bekkers,V.J.,& Tummers,L.G.(2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), 1333-1357.
  49. Whicher,A.,& Crick, T.(2019). Co-design, evaluation and the Northern Ireland innovation lab. Public Money & Management, 39(4), 290-299.
  50. Williamson,B.(2015). Governing methods: policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History,47(3),251-271.
  51. Wellstead,A.M.,& Howlett,M.(2022). (Re) Thinking think tanks in the age of policy labs: The rise of knowledge‐based policy influence organisations. Australian Journal of Public Administration,81(1),224-232.
  52. Yin,R.K.(2018). Case study research and applications(Vol. 6).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
سیاستگذاری عمومی
دوره 12، شماره 2
تیر 1405
صفحه 320-342

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار