مسیرهای مشارکت علوم انسانی و اجتماعی در بوم‌سازگان نوآوری: دلالت‌هایی برای خط‌مشی‌گذاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

3 استادیار مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران.

10.22034/jipas.2023.343752.1403

چکیده

هر چند که نظریه بوم‌سازگان نوآوری در زمینه فناوری و به یک معنا در علوم پایه و مهندسی، تا حد خوبی ساختار و توسعه یافته، در علوم انسانی و اجتماعی و فناوری­های نرم به درستی شکل نگرفته است. شاید از این‌رو که پژوهش‌گران حوزه مطالعات نوآوری همواره با ذهنیت اقتصادی به مفهوم «نوآوری» نگریسته­اند. این‌ رویکرد اقتصادی، آغازگر شکل­گیری گفتمان «ارزش ابزاری» در ارزش­گذاری پژوهش­های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی است که به عنوان منطقی برای حمایت مالی آغاز شد و شروع به گسترش کرد. فراگیر شدن این گفتمان و مقایسه نتایج پژوهشی این علوم با علوم پایه و مهندسی توسط معیارهای ارزیابی یکسان، چالش­ها و آسیب­های فراوانی در میان فعالان در حوزه علوم انسانی و اجتماعی داشته و به ایجاد فضایی دلسردکننده و انزوای آن­ها منجر شده است. در مقابل این گفتمان، پژوهشگران علوم انسانی و اجتماعی بر این باورند که کاری که انجام می­دهند در مقابل «ارزش ابزاری» دارای یک «ارزش ذاتی» است که اقتصاد نمی­تواند در آن نقشی داشته باشد. این تقابل در توجیه و منطق سرمایه­گذاری در فعالیت­ها و پژوهش‌‌های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی اختلافات راهبردی جدی ایجاد می­کند. در این مقاله ضمن مرور دیدگاه­های طرح شده پیرامون «ارزش» پژوهش‌‌ها علوم انسانی و اجتماعی در بوم‌سازگان نوآوری، مدلی برای نشان دادن گذرگاه­های مشارکت این علوم در بوم‌سازگان نوآوری پیشنهاد شده است. این مدل می­تواند راهکاری برای مصالحه منتقدان ابزارگرائی در مقابل اقتصاددانان بوده و مسیر پیش روی تأمین مالی پژوهش‌‌ها علوم انسانی و اجتماعی را هموارتر کند. در نهایت دلالت­هایی برای خط‌مشی‌گذاری در زمینه تأمین مالی هر یک از گذرگاه­های مشارکت پژوهش­های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی در بوم‌سازگان نوآوری بیان شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Humanities and Social Sciences Participation Channels in Innovation Ecosystems: Implications for Policy Making

نویسندگان [English]

  • Parvaneh Aghaei 1
  • Seyyed Sepehr Ghazinoory 2
  • Mahdi Pakzad Bonab 3
1 PhD Student in Science and Technology Policymaking, Faculty of Economics and Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor, Information Technology Management Department, Faculty of Economics and Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Although the theory of innovation ecosystems is well structured and developed in the field of technology and in a sense in basic sciences and engineering, it is not shaped in humanities and social sciences and soft technologies. Perhaps because researchers in the field of innovation studies have always looked at the concept of “innovation” with an economic mindset. This economic approach is the beginning of the formation of the “instrumental value” discourse in the valuation of humanities and social science researches, which started as a rationale for getting financial support and began to expand. The spread of this discourse and the comparison of the research results of these sciences with the basic and engineering sciences by the same evaluation criteria have caused many challenges and harms among the activists in the field of humanities and social sciences and has led to the creation of a discouraging atmosphere and their isolation. In contrast to this discourse, humanities and social science researchers believe that the work they do has an “intrinsic value” in contrast to "instrumental value" in which the economy cannot play a role. This confrontation creates serious strategic differences in the justification and logic of investing in the activities and researches of humanities and social sciences. In this article, while reviewing the views proposed about the “value” of humanities and social sciences research in innovation ecosystems, a model is proposed to show the channels of participation of these sciences in innovation ecosystems. This model can be a solution for the compromise of critics of instrumentalism in front of economists and make the way forward for financing humanities and social sciences research smoother. Finally, implications for policy making in the field of financing each of the channels of humanities and social science research participation in innovation ecosystems have been stated.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation Ecosystems
  • Humanities and Social Sciences
  • Intrinsic Value
  • Instrumental Value
Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 124-141.
AHRC. (2009). Leading the world: The economic impact of UK arts and humanities research, in arts and humanities research council. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4), 190-211.
Antadze, N., & McGowan, K. A. (2017). Moral entrepreneurship: Thinking and acting at the landscape level to foster sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 25(5), 1–13.
Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A., & Hitchen, G. (2009). Measuring intrinsic value-how to stop worrying and love economics. UK: Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
Bakhshi, H., Schneider, P., & Walker, C. (2009). Arts and humanities research in the innovation system: The uk example. Cultural Science Journal, 2(1), 344- 365.
Bateman, I., & Grobbritannien, D. T. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Britania: Edward Elgar Cheltenham.
Belfiore, E. (2015). Impact, value and bad economics: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 95–110.
Bell, D., & Hollows, J. (2005). Science, technology and culture. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Benneworth, P. (2015). Tracing how arts and humanities research translates, circulates and consolidates in society.. How have scholars been reacting to diverse impact and public value agendas? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 45–60.
Crossick, G. (2006). Knowledge Transfer Without Widgets: The Challenge of the Creative Economy: A Lecture to the Royal Society of Arts in Leeds on 31 May 2006. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.
Cuccia, T. (2020). Contingent valuation, in handbook of cultural economics. Britania: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cunningham, S. (2007). Oh, the Humanities!: Australia’s innovation system out of kilter. Australian Universities, 49(8), 28–30.
Del Saz-Salazar, S., Navarrete-Tudela, A., Alcala-Mellado, J. R., & del Saz-Salazar, D. C. (2019). On the use of life satisfaction data for valuing cultural goods: A first attempt and a comparison with the Contingent Valuation Method. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(1), 119–140.
Elyasi, M., & Malekifar, F. (2019). STI Policies to Augment Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 209-220.
Freeman, R., Freeman, C., & Freeman, S. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Japan: Burns & Oates.
Garcia, D. A. (2020). Building ecosystems of innovation in humanities and education. International Journal of the Humanities, 17(1), 1–13.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90(14), 10209-10220.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Aanstad, S. (2015). Is innovation a useful concept for arts and humanities research?. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 9–24.
Hazlitt, H. (2010). Economics in one lesson: The shortest and surest way to understand basic economics. UK: Currency Press.
Holden, J. (2004). Capturing cultural value: How culture has become a tool of government policy. India: Demos Press.
Jacobs, G., & Cleveland, H. (1999). Social Development Theory.  British: ICPD Press.
Jeong, D.-Y. (2008). Socio-economic costs from yellow dust damages in South Korea. Korean Social Science Journal, 35(2), 1–29.
Kristrom, B., Dasgupta, P., & Lofgren, K. G. (2002). Economic theory for the environment: Essays in honour of Karl-Goran Maler. England: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystem. London: In HarperBusiness.
Munasinghe, M. (1993). Environmental economics and sustainable development. American: World Bank Publications.
Noonan, D. S. (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3), 159–176.
Noonan, D. S. (2004). Valuing arts and culture: A research agenda for contingent valuation. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 34(3), 205–221.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2014). Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy, 41(3), 384–400.
Polanyi, M., Ziman, J., & Fuller, S. (2000). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory Minerva, 38(1), 54-73.
Russell, M. G., & Smorodinskaya, N. V. (2018). Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 114–131.
Sharra, R., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Social innovation: An interdisciplinary and critical review of the concept. Universite Catholique de Louvain Belgium, 1(3), 15.
Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. UK: Oxford University Press.
Smorodinskaya, N., Russell, M., Katukov, D., & Still, K. (2017). Innovation ecosystems vs, innovation systems in terms of collaboration and co-creation of value. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Korea, Hawaii International.
Suber, P. (2009). Knowledge as a public good. Sparc Open Access Newsletter, 6(2), 511- 533.
Throsby, D. (2003). Determining the value of cultural goods: How much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us?. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3), 275–285.
UNCTAD. (2021). Creative industry towards a new globalized creative economy.  thirdUnited nations conference on trade and development. United State: Creative Economy.