Identifying Obstacles and Mechanisms of Stakeholder Interactions in Science and Technology Policymaking Process

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Ph.D of Higher Education Development Planning, Faculty of Psychology and educational sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student of Higher Education Management, Faculty of Psychology and educational sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The concepts of stakeholder participation and interaction have been highlighted in science and technology policy literature for about two decades. The research question is "What are the obstacles and mechanisms facing stakeholders' interactions in the science and technology policy making process?". To answer this question, thematic analysis was used. For this purpose, two specialized journals, Research Policy and Science and Public Policy, with the most articles related to the topic of this research, were selected and analyzed. Based on the findings of the research, components such as: differences in views, interests, background and position of stakeholders, restrictive laws and regulations, complexity of Policy and specialization, unbalanced distribution of power, limited policy options, distance between theory And political action, confrontation of values and beliefs with technical issues, wrong timing for participation, political system and limited experience and knowledge of the stakeholders are obstacles to the interactions of the stakeholders. Despite these obstacles, in the analyzed articles, 26 interaction methods were introduced in three general categories: "virtual and face-to-face", "general methods for people and experts" and "direct and indirect interaction methods".

Keywords

References

  1. Ablon, L., & Golay, A. A. (2017). Wonks and geeks: examining commercial technology stakeholders’ perceptions of and interactions with public policy. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 556-564. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw084.
  2. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long range planning, 44(3), 179-196. DOI:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001.
  3. Alwani, S. M., Sharifzadeh, F. (2006), Public policy process (with revision), Allameh Tabatabai University Publishing, 4th edition.{In Persian}.
  4. Bhushan, B. (2015). Perspective: Science and technology policy–What is at stake and why should scientists participate?. Science and Public Policy, 42(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv005.
  5. Biegelbauer, P., & Hansen, J. (2011). Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 589-597. DOI:10.3152/030234211X13092649606404.
  6. Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E., Teerling, J., Van Alst, M. L., Klaasen, S., Swart, L. E., & Bunders, J. F. (2006). Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Science and public policy, 33(4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778993.
  7. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of management perspectives, 21(4), 34-48. DOI:10.5465/AMP.2007.27895338.
  8. Cuppen, E. (2012). A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy. Research Policy, 41(3), 624-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.006.
  9. Degelsegger, A., & Torgersen, H. (2011). Participatory paternalism: citizens' conferences in Austrian technology governance. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 391-402. DOI:10.3152/030234211X12924093660679.
  10. Driessen, P. P., Glasbergen, P., & Verdaas, C. (2001). Interactive policy-making–a model of management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 322-337. DOI:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00075-8.
  11. Dutrénit, G., & Suárez, M. (2018). Involving stakeholders in policymaking: tensions emerging from a public dialogue with knowledge-based entrepreneurs. Science and Public Policy, 45(3), 338-350. DOI:10.1093/scipol/scx043.
  12. Edelenbos, J., Klok, P. J., & Van Tatenhove, J. (2009). The institutional embedding of interactive policy making: insights from a comparative research based on eight interactive projects in the Netherlands. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(2), 125-148. DOI:10.1177/0275074008317157.
  13. Ferretti, M. P., & Pavone, V. (2009). What do civil society organisations expect from participation in science? Lessons from Germany and Spain on the issue of GMOs. Science and Public Policy, 36(4), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X436527.
  14. Finney, C. (2000). Implementing a citizen-based deliberative process on the Internet: The Buckinghamshire Health Authority Electronic Citizens' Jury in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154300781782165.
  15. Fischer, C., Leydesdorff, L., & Schophaus, M. (2004). Science shops in Europe: The public as stakeholder. Science and Public Policy, 31(3), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780028.
  16. Gagné, V., Berthelot, S., & Coulmont, M. (2022). Stakeholder engagement practices and impression management. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(2), 217-241. DOI:10.1108/JGR-03-2021-0036.
  17. Ghanei Rad, M. A., Mohammadi, A., Bigdalo, N. (2011), Investigating the Interaction Patterns of Research and Executive Support Organizations with the High Councils of Science and Technology Policy (Selected Countries), Rehiyaft, number 21(49). {In Persian}.
  18. Gonçalves, M. E. (2017). Transparency, openness and participation in science policy processes. In Interfaces between science and society (pp. 176-184). Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9781351280440-11.
  19. Griessler, E., Biegelbauer, P., & Hansen, J. (2011). Citizens' impact on knowledge-intensive policy: introduction to a special issue. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 583-588. DOI:10.3152/030234211X13122939587653.
  20. Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business ethics quarterly, 23(1), 97-124. DOI:10.5840/beq20132314.
  21. Joss, S. (1999). Public participation in science and technology policy-and decision-making ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change?. Science and public policy, 26(5), 290-293. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782338.
  22. Khalifa Soltani, H., Faghihi, A., Vaezi, R. (2013), Scientific Associations and the Scientific Decision-Making System of the Country, Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 6(24), pp. 111-89. https://sid.ir/paper/501013/fa.{In Persian}.
  23. Krick, E. (2015). Negotiated expertise in policy-making: How governments use hybrid advisory committees. Science and Public Policy, 42(4), 487-500. DOI:10.1093/scipol/scu069.
  24. Lindberg, M. B., Markard, J., & Andersen, A. D. (2018). Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix. Research policy, 48(10), 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.003.
  25. Llerena, P., Matt. M (2005). Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy: theory and practice. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26452-3_4.
  26. Macq, H., Tancoigne, É., & Strasser, B. J. (2020). From deliberation to production: public participation in Science and Technology policies of the European Commission (1998–2019). Minerva, 58(4), 489-512. DOI:10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6.
  27. Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management decision. DOI:10.1108/00251741211279648.
  28. Mampaey, J., & Huisman, J. (2016). Defensive stakeholder management in European universities: an institutional logics perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2218-2231. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2015.1029904.
  29. R(2005),Book review: Communication Researchers and Policy-Making, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2003), (pp. 605, price £28.95, ISBN 0-262-52340-X), Research Policy, Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 117-119. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2004.08.001.
  30. Mazarei, S. H., Pakzad Bonab, M., Mohseni Kiasri, M. (2018), The role of non-governmental scientific organizations in the development of science and technology, Rehiyaft, No. 72, pp. 19-32. 20.1001.1.10272690.1397.28.72.2.1.{In Persian}.
  31. Mejlgaard, N. (2009). The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 483-496. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X460962.
  32. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886. DOI:10.2307/259247.
  33. Nishizawa, M. (2005). Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: case study on the Japanese consensus conference on GM crops. Science and Public Policy, 32(6), 479-489. DOI:10.3152/147154305781779236.
  34. Orr, S. K. (2013). Environmental policymaking and stakeholder collaboration: Theory and practice. CRC Press. DOI:10.1201/b16131.
  35. Parthasarathy, S. (2010). Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 355-367. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X501180.
  36. Powell, M. C., & Colin, M. (2008). Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take?. Science Communication, 30(1), 126-136. DOI:10.1177/1075547008320520.
  37. Ramazani Temijani, S., Sheikhi, S. (2022). Evaluation of the sixth Development Plan Act from the perspective of different aspects of participation. Monthly expert reports of Islamic Parliament Research Center, 30(2). {In Persian}. https://report.mrc.ir/article_665.htm.
  38. Ramirez, L. F., & Belcher, B. M. (2019). Stakeholder perceptions of scientific knowledge in policy processes: A Peruvian case-study of forestry policy development. Science and Public Policy, 46(4), 504-517. DOI:10.1093/scipol/scz003.
  39. B(1996),Citizens and science policy, Science and Public Policv, volume 23, number 4, pages 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.4.261.
  40. Rask, M. (2003). The problem of citizens' participation in Finnish biotechnology policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(6), 441-454. DOI:10.3152/147154303781780236.
  41. Rowley, T. J. (2017). The power of and in stakeholder networks. In Stakeholder Management. Emerald Publishing Limited.DOI:10.1108/S2514-175920170000005.
  42. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. springer publishing company.
  43. Scholes, K., Johnson, G., & Whittington, R (2008). Exploring corporate strategy. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Eighth edition published.
  44. Shaebani, M., Razeghi, N. (2020). Scientific Citizenship: A Study of the Understanding and Public Engagement of Science and Technology. Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 41-53. {In Persian}. DOI: 10.22034/jstp.2020.12.2.1200.
  45. Sharifzadeh, Rahman (2017), Negotiating with objects: Bruno Latour and Actor-network theory, Tehran, Ney Publishing. {In Persian}.
  46. Spaapen, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research evaluation, 20(3), 211-218. DOI:10.3152/095820211X12941371876742.
  47. Van Tatenhove, J., Edelenbos, J., & Klok, P. J. (2010). Power and interactive policy‐making: a comparative study of power and influence in 8 interactive projects in The Netherlands. Public Administration, 88(3), 609-626. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01829.x.
  48. Varumo, L., Paloniemi, R., & Kelemen, E. (2020). Challenges and solutions in developing legitimate online participation for EU biodiversity and ecosystem services policies. Science and Public Policy, 47(4), 571-580. DOI:10.1093/scipol/scaa036.
  49. Weill, C. (2003). Can consultation of both experts and the public help developing public policy? Some aspects of the debate in France. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 199-203. DOI:10.3152/147154303781780452.
  50. Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PloS one, 16(7), e0254201.pp: 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201.
  51. Xiaodong, L., Xiaoping, L., & Feng, F. (2019). Research on Citizen Participation in the Implementation of Public Policy in Big Data Age. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1168, No. 3, p. 032013). IOP Publishing. DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1168/3/032013.
  52. Zhao, J., Azad, M. B., Bertrand, E. M., Burton, C., Crooks, V. A., Dawson, J., ... & Mah, C. L. (2020). Canadian Science Meets Parliament: Building relationships between scientists and policymakers. Science and Public Policy. DOI:10.1093/scipol/scz062.
  53. Zhao, Y., Fautz, C., Hennen, L., Srinivas, K. R., & Li, Q. (2015). Public engagement in the governance of science and technology. In Science and Technology Governance and Ethics (pp. 39-51). Springer, Cham. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-14693-5_4.
  54. Lafiti, M., Abdolhosseinzadeh, M., Azarfar, A. (2016),The Design of Succession Planning Model in Public Sector Organizations with Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM(,Quarterly Journal of Public Administration, Vol.4 , No.4 ,33-50. 1001.1.2322522.1395.4.0.2.7.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 10, Issue 2
2024
Pages 143-154

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics