Deployment of Social Innovation to Increase Social Participation In macro policy documents of science and technology (Case Study of Comprehensive scientific map of the country)

Document Type : Research Article


1 Assistant Professor, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Phd at science and technology policy, Mazandaran University


Public participation in science as one of the dimensions of science democracy in society can provide a constructive context for public view, and this will be realized when science and technology are considered a public issue and incorporated into the context of daily life of citizens. In this regard, by developing appropriate policies, citizens can engage in more attractive ways, including solutions based on social innovation in science and technology, and through broad and inclusive discussions of different groups of people, public oversight and participation. In science. Despite the fact that in the last two decades, the emphasis on formulating policy and planning for the development of science and technology in Iran can be clearly seen in the country's upstream documents, but less comprehensive research has been done to critique upstream science and technology documents in terms of social participation in science and technology. In this regard, the production of innovative ideas based on social innovation to achieve social participation in the comprehensive scientific map of the country is the unique mission of this research, which will be followed in three steps (description, pathology and solution). This study first tries to identify the challenges in the comprehensive scientific map by extracting the propositions regarding social participation in science and technology in policy documents in the form of 5 dimensions and 30 components.  The results showed that this document faces several disadvantages from this perspective. Finally, 25 solutions based on social innovation were presented to cover these challenges.


  1. پایا، علی. (1387). ترویج علم در جامعه؛‌یک ارزیابی فلسفی، فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری، سال اوّل، شماره اوّل، 38-25.
  2. حیدری،آزاده. (1390). راهکارهای ارتقاء وضعیت ترویج علم در ایران؛ با بررسی دیدگاه صاحب‌نظران و متولیان. دانش شناسی،4(15)،23-41.
  3. دبیرخانه شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی . (1389). نقشه جامع علمی کشور.
  4. فراستخواه، مقصود، قانعی راد، محمد امین.( 1386). بررسی نقش انجمن‌های علمی و دانشگاهیان در سیاست‌گذاری و ارزیابی نظام علمی کشور.رهیافت، ،41 12-4.
  5. قانعی راد، محمدامین و مرشدی، ابوالفضل. (1390). پیمایش فهم عمومی از علم و فناوری: مطالعه موردی شهروندان تهرانی فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری. سال سوم. شماره 3، 93-110.
  6. قانعی راد، محمد امین، مرشدی، ابوالفضل.(1391).دموکراتیزه‌شدن روابط علم و جامعه: از باسوادی علمی تا تولید مشترک دانش . حامعه شناسی آموزش و پرورش، ۲ (۲)، ۱۰-۱۵.
  7. گلداسمیت، استفان. (1395). قدرت نوآوریهای اجتماعی. ترجمه: علی اصغر سعدآبادی و حسین افتخاری. انتشارات دانشگاه امام صادق علیه السلام
  8. وحیدی،محمد.( ۱۳۸۸). علم در جامعه از تک گویی تا گفت و گو. فصلنامه مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 1 (4).
  9. وصالی، منصور.(1386).  مبانی نظری فهم عامه از علم در ایران(گزارش طرح پژوهشی). مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور. گروه ترویج علم.
  10. Braha, J. (2015). AAAS Communicating Science Program: Reflections on Evaluation. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
  11. Chilvers, J., &Kearnes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics. Routledge.
  12. Chopyak, J., & Levesque, P. (2002). Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future. Technology in Society24(1-2), 155-166.
  13. Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914-925.
  14. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional
  15. Holmes, B. (2011). Citizens' engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. Parliamentary Library.
  16. Howaldt, J., & Kopp, R. (2012). Shaping social innovation by social research. In Challenge Social Innovation (pp. 43-55). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  17. Martin, B., & Groth, E. (1991). Scientific knowledge in controversy: The social dynamics of the fluoridation debate. SUNY Press.
  18. Mejlgaard, N., & Stares, S. (2013). Performed and preferred participation in science and technology across Europe: Exploring an alternative idea of “democratic deficit”. Public Understanding of Science22(6), 660-673.
  19. Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (Eds.). (2003). Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons for experimental research. Russell Sage Foundation.
  20. Rasanathan, K., Posayanonda, T., Birmingham, M., &Tangcharoensathien, V. (2012). Innovation and participation for healthy public policy: the first National Health Assembly in Thailand. Health Expectations15(1), 87-96.
  21. Rask, M., Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S., Tauginienė, L., Dikčius, V., Matschoss, K., Aarrevaara, T., & D’Andrea, L. (2016). Innovative public engagement: A conceptual model of public engagement in dynamic and responsible governance of research and innovation. Publication of the PE2020 project (www. pe2020. eu), European Commission.
  22. Raza, G. (2009). Introduction: mapping public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Society14(2), 211-219.
  23. Richards, E. (1991). Vitamin C and cancer: Medicine or politics?. Springer.
  24. 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 Journal1(1), 99-110.