فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی

کاوشی در گستره حکمرانی علم: مروری قلمرویی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه السلام

چکیده

حکمرانی علم به­ عنوان جهت‌دهی به رفتارها و افعال بازیگران نظام علم از طریق سازوکار‌های تبعیت در نظر گرفته و از زوایای مختلف درباره آن پژوهش شده است. اما حکمرانی علم چه ابعاد و اضلاعی را در گستره خود دارد؟ تمرکز عمده مطالعات درباره چه موضوعاتی بوده و چه موضوع و مسائلی از آن کمتر مد نظر پژوهشگران بوده است؟ پژوهش‌های این حوزه با چه روش‌های پژوهشی دنبال شده‌ و چه روش‌هایی چندان استفاده نشده ­اند؟ سؤالاتی هستند که نیازمند کندوکاوند. روش این پژوهش مرور قلمرویی بود که آرکسی و اومالی آن را ارائه کردند. مطالعات شناسایی شده از طریق جست­ وجو در پایگاه‌های داده‌ای معتبر به ­دست آمد. از 327 مدرک به ­دست ‌آمده، 48 مدرک با معیارهای ورود و خروج این مطالعه همخوان بودند. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که تمرکز مطالعات بر مشارکت عمومی و جنبه‌های نظریه سیاسی حکمرانی علم و چالش‌های اخلاقی پیشرفت‌های علم و فناوری بود. روش تحلیلی- توصیفی و بعد از آن مطالعه موردی پرکاربردترین روش در پژوهش‌های حکمرانی علم است. کشور انگلستان و پس از آن هلند دو کشوری هستند که بیشترین انتشار را در این حوزه داشته‌اند. از نظر زمانی رشد تولیدات علمی در دو دهه اخیر فزاینده بوده است و این امر نشان می‌دهد که ادبیات علمی این حوزه به‌تدریج در حال تکامل و غنی‌شدن است. اخلاق حکمرانی علم و نظریه سیاسی حکمرانی علم دو ضلع از این حوزه بوده‌اند که بیشترین آثار درباره آنها بوده است. نظریه حکمرانی علم، ابزارها و روش‌ها و اقتصاد و مالیه پژوهش اضلاعی بوده‌اند که کمتر به آنها پرداخته ‌شده است و هنوز به غنای نظری و تجربی چندانی نرسیده‌اند. در پژوهش‌های انجام شده کمتر از روش‌های تجربی استفاده شده است و این نشان می‌دهد که این حوزه این ظرفیت را دارد که با به‌کارگیری طرح‌ها و روش‌های پژوهشی تجربی، بر غنای نظری و عملی آن افزوده شود. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Exploring the Scope of Science Governance: A Scoping Review

نویسندگان [English]

  • hossein gholipour
  • reza abiri

Imam sadiq university

چکیده [English]

Governance of science is intended as an orientation to the behaviors and practice of science system actors through compliance mechanisms and has been studied from different angles. What are the dimensions and aspects of the governance of science in its scope? What are the main focus of the studies and what topics and issues have been less considered by researchers? What research methods have been followed in this field and what methods have not been used much? The method used in this article is the Scoping review method proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. The identified studies were obtained by searching the valid databases. Out of 327 documents obtained, 48 documents met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study. Studies have focused on public participation and aspects of the political theory of the governance of science and the ethical challenges of advances in science and technology. The "analytical-descriptive" method and then the "case study" has been the most widely used method in researches of governance of science. The United Kingdom, followed by the Netherlands, are the two countries with the most publications in this area. In terms of time, the growth of scientific production in the last two decades has been increasing, and this shows that the scientific literature in this field is gradually evolving and enriching. "Ethics of the governance of science", "political theory of the governance of science", have been the two sides of this field that have the most works. But "the theory of the governance of science", "tools and methods" and "economics and finance of research" have been aspects that have been less discussed and have not yet reached much theoretical and experimental richness. The researches have used less experimental methods and this shows that this field has the capacity to increase its theoretical and practical richness by using experimental research designs and methods.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • governance of science
  • Scoping review
  • governance
  • intervention in science
  • ethical challenges of science governance
  1. * Lyall, C. (2007). Changing boundaries: The role of policy networks in the multi-level governance of science and innovation in Scotland. Science and Public Policy, 34(1), 3-14.‏
  2. *Arnaldi, S., Quaglio, G., Ladikas, M., O'Kane, H., Karapiperis, T., Srinivas, K.R., & Zhao, Y. (2015). Responsible governance in science and technology policy: Reflections from Europe, China and India. Technology in Society, 42, 81-92.‏
  3. *Bakuwa, J. (2014). The role of laypeople in the governance of science and technology. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(1),121-128.
  4. *Bora, A., & Hausendorf, H. (2006). Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 478-488.‏
  5. *Borrás, S.(2012). Three tensions in the governance of science and technology. In The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 429-440). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. *Bozeman, B., & Kim, D. (1981). Governing the "republic of science": an analysis of national science foundation officials' attitudes about managed science. Polity, 14(2), 183-204.‏
  7. *Braun, K., Moore, A., Herrmann, S.L., & Könninger, S. (2010). Science governance and the politics of proper talk: Governmental bioethics as a new technology of reflexive government. Economy and Society, 39(4), 510-533.‏
  8. *Couvet, D., & Prevot, A.C. (2015). Citizen-science programs: Towards transformative biodiversity governance. Environmental Development, 13, 39-45.‏
  9. *Desmarais, R. (2016). Governing science on BBC radio in 1930s Britain: Religion, eugenics and war. In Scientific governance in Britain, 1914-79(pp. 234-254). Manchester University Press.‏
  10. *Donovan, C. (2005). The governance of social science and everyday epistemology. Public Administration, 83(3), 597-615.‏
  11. *Fritz, J.S. (2010). Towards a ‘new form of governance’in science-policy relations in the European Maritime Policy. Marine Policy, 34(1), 1-6.‏
  12. *Fujigaki, Y. (2009). STS in Japan and East Asia: Governance of science and technology and public engagement. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 3(4), 511-518.‏
  13. *Furrow, B.R. (1983). Governing science: Public risks and private remedies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 131(6), 1403-1467.‏
  14. *Gaillard, M. (2013). The governance of «well-ordered science», from ideal conversation to public debate. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, 28(2), 245-256.‏
  15. *Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S.H., Jackson, J., & Olsthoorn, J. (2005). Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310(5756), 1908-1909.‏
  16. *Gillott, J. (2014). Bioscience, governance and politics. Springer.‏
  17. *Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 57(1), 117-168.‏
  18. *Haggerty, K.D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391-414.‏
  19. *Harvey, A., & Salter, B. (2012). Governing the moral economy: Animal engineering, ethics and the liberal government of science. Social Science & Medicine, 75(1), 193-199.‏
  20. *Hughes, J. (2016). Mugwumps?: The royal society and the governance of post-war British science. In Scientific Governance in Britain, 1914-79. Manchester University Press.‏
  21. *Jasanoff, S. (2005). Technologies of humility: Citizen Participation in governing science. In Wozu Experten?(pp. 370-389). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.‏
  22. *Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 621-638.‏
  23. *Kettner, M. (1999). Applied ethics, human rights, and the governance of big science. Jahrbuch Für Recht Und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics, 7, 273-289. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43593078
  24. *Lambright, W.H. (1976). Governing science and technology. Oxford University Press.‏
  25. *Landeweerd, L., Townend, D., Mesman, J., & Van Hoyweghen, I. (2015). Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: A contribution to ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 11(1), 8.‏
  26. *Leggett, D. (2016). Give me a laboratory and I will win you the war: Governing science in the Royal Navy. In Scientific governance in Britain, 1914-79(pp. 27-44). Manchester University Press.‏
  27. *Maasen, S., & Lieven, O. (2006). Transdisciplinarity: A new mode of governing science?. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 399-410.‏
  28. *Meyer, M. (2013). Assembling, governing, and debating an emerging science: The rise of synthetic biology in France. BioScience, 63(5), 373-379.‏
  29. *Mintrom, M. (2008). Competitive federalism and the governance of controversial science. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(4), 606-63.‏
  30. *Mintrom, M., & Bollard, R. (2009). Governing controversial science: Lessons from stem cell research. Policy and Society, 28(4), 301-314.‏
  31. *Notturno, M.A. (2008). Nine governance choices pertaining to science. Medical Hypotheses, 71 (2), 168-77.
  32. *Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54-73.
  33. *Remedios, F. (2009). Fuller and mirowski on the commercialization of scientific knowledge. In The social sciences and democracy (pp. 229-239). Palgrave Macmillan, London.‏
  34. *Robson, K. (1993). Governing science and economic growth at a distance: Accounting representation and the management of research and development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 461-48.‏
  35. *Salter, B., & Harvey, A. (2014). Creating problems in the governance of science: Bioethics and human/animal chimeras. Science and Public Policy, 41(5), 685-696.‏
  36. *Schroeder, D., & Rerimassie, V. (2015). Science and technology governance and European values. In science and technology governance and ethics (pp. 53-71). Springer, Cham.‏
  37. *Todt, O. (2011). The limits of policy: Public acceptance and the reform of science and technology governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 902-909.‏
  38. *Van Der Meulen, B. (2007). Interfering governance and emerging centres of control. In The changing governance of the sciences(pp. 191-203). Springer, Dordrecht.‏
  39. *Wagner, C.S., Wagner, C.S., & Graber (2018). Collaborative era in science. Palgrave Macmillan.‏
  40. *Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (2007). The changing governance of the sciences: The consequences of establishing research evaluation systems for knowledge production in different countries and scientific fields. In The changing governance of the sciences (pp. 3-27). Springer, Dordrecht.‏
  41. *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.‏
  42. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.‏
  43. Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford.
  44. Fuller, S. (2000). Governing science before it governs us. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 25(2), 95-100.‏
  45. Fuller, S. (2000). The governance of science: Ideology and the future of the open society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  46. Fuller, S. (2002). Governing science: A reply to critics. Futures, 34(5), 457-464.‏
  47. Fuller, S. (2002). The arguments of the governance of science. Futures, 34(2), 174-177.‏
  48. Gerard, L. DeGré (2012). Science as a social institution: An introduction to the sociology of science. Literary Licensing.
  49. Lynn, Jr. Laurence E. (2010). In Foundations of Public Administration (pp. 1-40), ASPA.
  50. Macnaghten, P., & Chilvers, J. (2014). The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(3), 530-548.‏
  51. Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2004). Synthesising research evidence. In Studying the organisation and delivery of health services(pp. 200-232). Routledg‏
  52. McLeish, C., & Nightingale, P. (2007). Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy. Research Policy, 36(10), 1635-1654.‏
  53. Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Pearson.
  54. Plano, C., Vicki, L., & Creswell, J.W. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  55. Sarewitz, D. (2005). Governance of science. In Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.

 

فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی
دوره 28، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 106
دی 1401
صفحه 69-93