Strategy for Culture

Strategy for Culture

The role of theorizing Forums in the science governance process

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Maysam Chegin
Department of Public Administration, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jsfc.2023.408714.2538
Abstract
The field of science, technology, and innovation is one of the most important areas of public issues, and the compilation of optimal governance patterns and processes in this field has always been the focus of decision-makers. Considering the experience of countries in the area of governance of science, technology, and innovation, it is of great importance to examine the position of theorizing as one of the important components in realizing desirable scientific governance, especially in the humanities and social sciences.
The current research is trying to answer these questions by adopting a qualitative approach based on the theme analysis method, which seeks the output of basic, organized, and inclusive themes related to the research problem, whether theorizing Forums can be effective in the process of science governance in the country. What functions do theory Forums have in the science governance process? In which part of the country's governance structure can we benefit from the results of the theorizing Forums?
The findings of the research show that the results of the theorizing Forums can be effective in the process of science governance. In this regard, 6 functions were identified, which are: the basic and contextual function of theorizing, coordination of specialized areas, ethical orientation, process modification, problem-solving and result orientation, monitoring and evaluation of processes.
Keywords
Forum
Theorizing
Governance of science

Subjects

  1. خسروپناه، عبدالحسین.(1386). نظریه دیدبانی (فلسفه مضاف تاریخی – منطقی به مثابه نظریه تحول در علوم)، اندیشه نوین دینی، س (10)، 46- 9.
  2. عابدی جعفری، حسن، تسلیمی، محمد سعید، فقیهی، ابوالحسن، و شیخ‌زاده، محمد. (1390). تحلیل مضمون و شبکه مضامین: روشی ساده و کارآمد برای تبیین الگوهای موجود در داده‌های کیفی. اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی، 5(2)، 151-198.
  3. Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development(2015),A/RES/69/313,https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/science/decisions.
  4. Bakker, J. I. (2019), Grounded Theory Methodology and Grounded Theory Method Introduction to the Special Issue, Sociological focus,vol.52, No. 2, 91-106.
  5. Camic, C, Gross, N and Lamont, M (2011) ‘The study of social knowledge-making’, in Camic, C, Gross, N and Lamont, M (eds), Social Knowledge in the Making, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  6. Bero LA, Grundy Q (2016) Why Having a (Nonfinancial) Interest Is Not a Conflict of Interest. PLoS Biol 14(12): e2001221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001221
  7. Chijioke, O. C. Ikechukwu, A. & Aloysius, A. (2021). Understanding theory in social science research: Public administration in perspective. Teaching Public Administration, 39(2), 156–174.
  8. Cornelissen, J. Höllerer, M. A. & Seidl, D. (2021). What Theory Is and Can Be: Forms of Theorizing in Organizational Scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3).
  9. Cosens B, Ruhl JB, Soininen N, Gunderson L, Belinskij A, Blenckner T, Camacho AE, Chaffin BC, Craig RK, Doremus H, Glicksman R, Heiskanen AS, Larson R, Similä J. Governing complexity: Integrating science, governance, and law to manage accelerating change in the globalized commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 7;118(36).
  10. Fanelli, D. (2010). "Positive" results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLOS ONE, 5(4), e10068.
  11. Fecher, B. Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In: Bartling, S. Friesike, S. (eds) Opening Science. Springer, Cham. pp. 17-47(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
  12. Fuller, S. (2000). The governance of science: ideology and the future of the open society. Open University Press.
  13. Ghofrani, P. Farhangi, A. Isaai, M. T. & Ghofrani, T. (2021). Introducing PACT Model of Transformative Persuasion: Re-emergence of Learning Approach to Persuasive Communications. Journal of Cyberspace Studies, 5(2), 85-114.
  14. Gwet, Kilem. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters.
  15. Grek, S. (2010). International Organisations and the Shared Construction of Policy “Problems”: problematisation and change in education governance in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 396-406.
  16. Haack, S. (2011). Defending science-within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Prometheus Books.
  17. Harding, S. (1998). Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Indiana University Press
  18. Hiebert, J. Cai, J. Hwang, S. Morris, A.K. Hohensee, C. (2023). Building and Using Theoretical Frameworks. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_3
  19. Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020 Aug;42(8):846-854. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030.
  21. Ladikas, Miltos, Sachin Chaturvedi, Yandong Zhao, Dirk Stemerding (2015). Science and Technology Governance and Ethics, A Global Perspective from Europe, India and China, Springer, Cham,p100.
  22. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
  23. Lucas, B. J. & Mai, K. M. (2022). Illumination and elbow grease: A theory of how mental models of the creative process influence creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 168
  24. Mazur, M. Grabar,D. Grd, P. Sobodić, A. Spahić, A. Škvorc, L. Benz, S. Sedlbauer, G. Sikorska, K. Dobaj, J. Beamonte, E. P. (2015). Knowledge Management Handbook for companies, Zagreb: km20.eu.
  25. Mirza, N.M. & Perret-Clermont, A. (2009). Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices.
  26. Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press.
  27. OECD (2021), “Times of Crisis and Opportunity”, in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021: Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  28. Peel, K. L. (2020). A Beginner’s Guide to Applied Educational Research using Thematic Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 25. https://doi.org/10.7275/ryr5-k983
  29. Pinho, I. Pinho, C. e Costa, A. P. (2019b). Knowledge Governance: Building a Conceptual Framework. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science 8(1), 72-92.
  30. Pelacho, M. et al.(2021). Science as a Commons: Improving the Governance of Knowledge Through Citizen Science. In:, et al. The Science of Citizen Science. Springer, Cham.
  31. Stilgoe, J. Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580
  32. Swedberg, R. (2012). Theorizing in sociology and social science: turning to the context of discovery. Theory and Society, 41(1), 1–40.
  33. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination, Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
  34. Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Xu, W. & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying Thematic Analysis to Education: A Hybrid Approach to Interpreting Data in Practitioner Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19.