A Framework to prioritize basic researches for governmental support

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in S&T Policy, Tarbiat Modares University,Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Information Technology Management,Tarbiat Modares University,Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The increasing growth of the scope and depth of scientific activities on the one hand and resource constraints on the other have made priority-setting an essential requirement in science, technology and innovation policy. In this context, decisions regarding basic research would be more complicated because of their specific characteristics including high uncertainty and unpredictability of the resulting benefits, and -as a consequence- the impossibility of cost-benefit analysis as the primary logic of priority-setting. This paper assumes that a national institution in Iran with a defined budget to support basic research in natural sciences must select a number of research proposals to support. The research question is how to do this. In order to answer this question and based on design science research methodology, via a systematic review of the knowledge base, the conceptual model of prioritizing basic research was formulated based on the framework for solving the problem of "R&D project portfolio selection" and "challenges of basic research priority-setting". Then, via answering these challenges, a process model was prescribed to answer the research question. In this model, after evaluating each proposal, the best set is selected by means of zero-one mathematical programming with the aim of maximizing the attractiveness of the set observing budget constraints, discipline and geographical distribution, type of research and justice. Validation of the proposed model was done through computer simulation of the mathematical model, as well as qualitative survey over  experts' opinions to validate the general logic of the model.

Keywords

References

  1. Brattström, E., & Hellström, T. (2019). Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities. Energy Policy, 127, 240–247.
  2. Caraça, J., & Godinho, M. M. (2009). Setting Research Priorities: A Taxonomy of Policy Models. Georgia Institute of Technology.
  3. Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Jr, J. A. V. A. (2015). Design Science Research: A Method for Science and Technology Advancement. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319073736
  4. Ergas, H. (1987). Does technology policy matter. Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy, 191–245.
  5. Gassler, H., Polt, W., & Rammer, C. (2007). Priority setting in research & technology policy-historical developments and recent trends [Working Paper]. Institute of Technology and Regional Policy.
  6. Ghazinoory, S., & Ghazinoory, S. (2012). Science, technology and innovation policy making: An introduction. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press.{In Persian}.
  7. 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.
  8. Martin, B., & Tang, P. (2007). The Economic and Social Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, (Working Paper No.161).
  9. OECD. (2002). Frascati Manual 2002.
  10. OECD. (2003). Governance of Public Research toward Better Practices (Vol. 1).
  11. OECD. (2010). Creating and Applying Knowledge. In The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow (1st ed., p. 42).
  12. Oztaysi, B., Onar, S. C., Goztepe, K., & Kahraman, C. (2017). Evaluation of research proposals for grant funding using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft Computing, 21(5), 1203–1218.
  13. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research.
  14. Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.
  15. Robert K. Merton, The Normative Structure of Science (1942). Retrieved April 3, 2019, from https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html#note1
  16. Salo, A., & Liesiö, J. (2006). A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5(01), 65–88.
  17. Shokatian, T., & Ghazinoory, S. (2019). Challenges of Policy Making in the Realm of Basic Research. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 347-361. {In Persian}
  18. Stewart, J. (1995). Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Research Policy, 24(1), 115–126.
  19. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.
  20. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2012). A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems, 423–438. Springer.
  21. Weinberg, A. M. (1963). Criteria for scientific choice. Minerva, 1(2), 159–171.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 6, Issue 2
September 2020
Pages 75-93

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics