Mapping of a science and technology policy network based on social network analysis.

• Author: Kalantari, Esmaeel

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960s, results of science and technology studies have been gradually applied to science and technology policy, and this has been seriously addressed by policy makers entering the third millennium (Ahlqvist et al., 2012). The participation of different actors in science, technology and innovation policy is one of the essential features of this system (Wojnicka-Sycz, 2020). The "institutions" and "institutional interactions" are the concepts that gradually emerged during the maturity period of science and technology policy studies through the works of a number of scientists (Martin, 2012). Therefore, institutional mapping is used, analyzed and studied to investigate the national innovation system in some countries (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1999; Capron & Cincera, 2001; Bikar et al., 2009). The evolution of the innovation models from the linear model of science, technology, and innovation to the systematic model (innovation system) (Edquist & Hommen, 1999), as well as the establishment of the policy networks concept in public policy studies, have created a growing emphasis on the importance of institutions and the interactions between them, especially from a network perspective (Kalantari et al., 2021; Blanco et al., 2011; Wasserman & Faust, 1999). Thus, the importance of policymaking institutions, and especially the interactions between them from the perspective of innovation literature and policymaking literature, is also emphasized. Moreover, the concept of systematic failure (affected by the viewpoints of evolutionary economics) signifies that any lack or deficiency in structures, institutions, and rules affecting the availability and production of the required knowledge is due to economic failure. This is due to the lack or inefficiency of the required relationships between the institutions in the innovative system. Furthermore, it is indicative of insufficient rules, lack of presence or a limited number of key players, weak harmony among sectors, and lack of knowledge progress (Niosi, 2002; Teubal, 1993). From another point of view, it emphasizes the necessity and importance of the science and technology policymaking institutional network.

In this paper, by reviewing relevant articles, a framework for the network analysis of science and technology policymaking institutions is designed. Thus, in the first phase, a framework is formulated for a science and technology policymaking process and then, in the next phase, another framework is formulated to divide the labor between science and technology policymaking institutions. Third, analyzing the method of social networks and the way of establishing the science and technology policymaking network is discussed. Afterward, the analysis of the science and technology policymaking network in Iran is discussed as a case study. Lastly, the paper is finalized with a discussion, conclusion, and some suggestions about the reformation of the science and technology policymaking network in Iran.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Mapping of the policy networks with the social network analysis (SNA)

Various studies have been conducted by other researchers, in which policy networks in different policy fields have been mapped using the SNA method (Kalantari et al., 2021). Normann (2017) uses the SNA method and the concept of policy networks to study stakeholders and actors in energy and climate policy in Norway. Two fields of carbon capture and storage, and offshore wind plant have been investigated in this study as case studies. The data of this study were collected through existing empirical studies and semi-structured interviews with 42 policymakers, civil activists, industry representatives, research organizations and other stakeholders. In this research, first, the policy network in the field of carbon capture and storage in three consecutive time periods has been drawn and analyzed. Then, the policy network of power plants is drawn and analyzed in two consecutive time periods; and then these networks were compared with each other.

In another study, Rogelja and Shannon (2017) used SNA to describe the network of actors involved in the Serbian anti-corruption forest policy network. The Serbian Anti-Corruption Policy Network consists of 16 actors (organizations), of which only five have a strong and reciprocal involvement in anti-corruption activities. Most of the central actors are state-owned enterprises and public companies, which themselves form a sub-network. The data collection method is semi-structured interview and the sampling method is the snowball method, which is done in three steps. In this research, in addition to drawing a policy network, a number of network characteristics, including network density and network degree, have also been calculated. In addition, Browne et al. (2017) describe the network structure of influential organizations in the field of health policy in the Torres Islands. In this policy network, 61 influential organizations have been identified. In this research, in addition to drawing the network with the SNA method, indicators of the network, including network density and average degree have been calculated.

In addition, another study (Mikulsliene & Pitrenaite-Zileniene, 2013) was conducted to evaluate the education and science policy network in Lithuania and to identify barriers to collaborative management in this network. This study is based on a case study in decision-making groups within the Ministry of Education and Science in Lithuania from 2007 to 2010. In this study, the education and science policy network in Lithuania has been mapped using the SNA method. Also, in a study conducted by Mohammadi Kangarani and Rafsanjani Nezhad (2015), the power structure in the water policy and management network in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been mapped and analyzed. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, the SNA method is used to draw a network of the legal tasks and powers of institutions, determine the centers of power, and establish how the power is distributed among the institutions of this network. Using the SNA method, we can first describe the dependencies and relationships between institutions involved in water policy, secondly, we can determine the degree and importance of an institution or a set of institutions and show the distribution of power among different institutions, and third, we can show the sensitivity of the water policy network structure in the absence of certain institutions.

Despite the mentioned research and other research that has used the SNA method to map the policy networks in various fields of policy, so far, no suitable research has been done to map the science and technology policy network by the method of social network analysis. Therefore, in this study, the researcher's goal is to map the science and technology policy network in Iran by the SNA method and then analyze this network with the help of SNA indicators. For this purpose, and before analyzing this network, we are looking for a framework for mapping this network. Therefore, in the continuation of this section, by reviewing the literature of science and technology policies, an attempt is made to establish a framework for mapping the science and technology policy network in Iran.

Science and technology policymaking process

Science, technology and innovation policymaking consists of three main activities including (OECD, 2005; Hjelt et al., 2005; Polt, 2005) "agenda setting and prioritization," "design and implementation" and "evaluation and policy learning." In terms of policymaking levels, Dror (1971) divides such policies into two categories:

1. Mega policies consisting of postures, assumptions, strategies, and main guidelines special policies must obey. The mega policies are the same as master or umbrella policies showing the purposes and priorities of a country. Even though they are few in number, from the perspective of scope and time horizon, they are very large and lengthy. They are the main guidance framework for the activities of governments and are usually sources for secondary policies, as well as the establishment basis for performing policy instruments (Akinsanya & Ayoade, 2013).

2. Meta policies formulate the state of policymaking structure to reach considered policies (Dror, 1971). On the other hand, they focus on the policymaking structure and procedure. The main subject of meta policies is the improvement of the methods, techniques, and tools of designing policies and policymaking processes in governmental firms (Akinsanya & Ayoade, 2013). The meta policies are strategic policies explaining the performance of main policies.

   The purpose of these phases is to design and manage the policymaking system as a whole as well as to set overall principles and rules for policymaking based on the concepts of meta and mega policies. Miyakawa (1999) suggests the following frameworks for policymaking:

1. Preliminary, comprehensive policymaking (mega policies and meta policies).

2. Detailed specialized policymaking: (operational policies).

   Therefore, general and executive policies have specific characteristics detailed in Table 1.

   After defining policies and priorities at the first level of science and technology policymaking (studied in two levels of mega and meta policies), at the second level, there are institutions that design and implement executive policies or plans. The plans are practical designs and implementation aspects of executive policies formulated and set for a specific period. In each policy plan, beside setting goals and priorities (previously done at the first level), other issues should also be taken into consideration (Bartzokas & Teubal, 2002): main groups or institutions of purpose, administrators and their approaches, time period, necessary sources and expected outputs of the plan, and the plan's relative situation regarding other plans.

   Lastly, after setting...