فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری
سال شانزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 57، بهار 1402)

This research was carried out with the serious concern of creating an effective relationship between research and the needs of society and industry in the field of humanities and social sciences. The research aims to develop a model to measure the readiness level of humanities and social science research to be applied. The logic of this model is inspired by the well-known Technology Readiness Level (TRL) concept. Data collection was done through semi-structured interviews with 27 deans of universities and research institutes, experts, and policymakers in the field of science, research and technology. The data collection process continued until reaching theoretical saturation and data analysis was done by thematic analysis method. Among the four approaches proposed in the field of relationship between humanities and social science research with the concept of technology readiness level, (TRL), the fourth approach, i.e., the replacement approach, was considered. Further, instead of Technology Readiness levels that show the maturity level of a technology to enter the field of application, two criteria of enablers and results were replaced as the main themes of the model. Based on the developed model, education, research, dissemination, and promotion were considered enablers; and economic, socio-cultural and governance results were considered as results. Based on the system view of this model, enablers of humanities and social science research can implicitly be the foundation for the realization of practical achievements and results of humanities and social science research through improving processes and capacities.

Fintechs or financial startups are progressively impacting the financial services value chain every day. Fintechs has provided the country's financial markets governors with an irreplaceable opportunity to reform the country's financial system mechanisms. The ecosystem development of these innovative businesses in the financial system is demanding as the prudential requirements of the financial system, and the obstacles that generally exist for innovative businesses. This descriptive research investigates the systemic problems of fintech ecosystem development and its solutions. The analytical texts published in one year and 49 semi-structured interviews with experts were analyzed with a deductive thematic analysis methodology based on Nicoletti's model. Then, the systemic network problems besides institutional mapping of the fintech ecosystem have been extracted; also its validity has been discussed in five focus groups. Then, the existing problems for the development of the fintech business ecosystem are categorized into six sectors: policy, regulation, and supervision (28 problems) such as the lack of a fintech development vision, science production, and promotion (4 problems) such as the lack of fintech scientific field in universities, investment (4 problems) such as the lack of investment statistics in fintech, financial solutions (10 problems) such as weakness in the inclusive financing system, and fintech demand (4 problems) such as low urgency of fintech with financial regulatory bodies. Ultimately, based on the issues raised, the policy implications of this research are presented to facilitate the governance of the

Conflict analysis is one of the important subjects in political stability/change studies. Since the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (SRT) is one of the leading actors in the country's education, research, and technology policies, how this ministry plays a role in the field of science, technology, and innovation policies is closely related to the sustainability and effectiveness of these policies. The current research aims to present the conflict model of the Ministry with an actor-oriented approach. This study was conducted with a qualitative approach and thematic analysis method, and research data was collected based on semi-structured interviews. The results show six key conflicts at three levels (1) macro policymaking actors, (2) policymaking and support actors, and (3) executive and operational actors. The main institutions involved in the conflict have been identified and introduced in each caseThe results show six key conflicts, whose titles and sides are (1) macro governance conflict with the supreme council of cultural revolution, the supreme council of SRT, the council of technologies and knowledge-based productions. (2) separation level with the ministry of education; (3) specialized fields with the ministry of health, treatment and medical education; (4) mission separation with the president's science and technology vice presidency; (5) tenure with universities and government research centers; (6) regulation with specialized educational and research institutions.

In the industrial development of Iran, despite significant investments and focus on the upstream petrochemical industry, the development of the mid-stream and downstream industries has been neglected. Although this has resulted in acceptable export performance in the upstream industry, it has created limited export development benefits in the downstream petrochemical industries. This article seeks to analyze the reasons for these conditions from the perspective of the technological capabilities.Through the exploratory study of literature, the dimensions of technological capabilities were identified and adapted to the conditions of these industries during interviews with twelve experts. Using a questionnaire, these dimensions were evaluated in 128 enterprises in three industries: plastics, detergents, and paint, and resin and compared with each other using the "importance-performance" analysis method. Based on the results, the strengths of these industries are limited to project implementation and process engineering capabilities, while their weaknesses are in pre-investment, learning, industrial engineering, product engineering, linkage, and networking capabilities. But the major challenge for these companies is the lack of complementary capabilities including marketing, creating sales networks and distribution channels, managing brands, developing after-sales services and other related capabilities. Although the managers rated these components as very poor in "performance", they did not attach high "importance" to them either. The reasons are the continued dominance of the import substitution approach, lack of expert personnel, lack of long-term planning for a stable presence in regional markets, and deviation in export support policies. In order to develop export technological products, this article suggests that companies design and implement smart programs in upgrading these complementary capabilities with the support of relevant government institutions.

Guiding research and changing its content by actors inside and outside of scientific community is a phenomenon that has attracted the attention of many researchers in the field of research governance. The purpose of this research is to describe a part of these researches to understand how research is governed. This description has been formed in the reciprocating with a more basic framework, i.e. the freedom-responsibility duality. Thus, by adopting a narrative review approach, after expressing an argument about the possibility of research governance, the main discussions about manner of arranging the authority relations in the field of research have been proposed with a view to the aforementioned duality. This duality, on one side of which is independence and scientific freedom (necessity of self-assignment of research tasks by the researcher) and on the other side of which is accountability and responsibility of research (compliance with external expectations from research), has been historically analyzed and the process of shifting from a contradictory relationship to an interactive and complementary relationship is described. Finally, seven lines of research from its manifestation in the formation of research governance mechanisms have been counted that common feature of all of them is a kind of influence on research while maintaining its functional necessity (research independence).

Is research governable? If the answer is positive, these questions are raised: Does governance of research mean injecting ideology into it and ordering it? The researcher's freedom to seek the truth is limited by what kind of mechanisms? what is the place of the norms of the scientific community, the expectations of external authorities, including the government and society, the demands of customers such as industry in these constraints, and in what process does the researcher become accountable? The purpose of this article is to discuss about these questions and similar topics. This article is a written debate between the author of an article entitled " Governance of Research: A Theoretical Framework" (Mojtaba Javadi) and its reviewer (Narges Naraghi), which was published in the same issue of the Science and Technology Quarterly. The author of the mentioned article is send a letter to the editor of the journal in protest of the reasons for its rejection by the reviewer and entered into a debate with the reviewer at his discretion. Through the mediation of the editor, several correspondences were made between the author and the reviewer, whose contents are presented in this article without any interference. In short, by referring to the use of some sentences in the article, the reviewer has argued that the author is seeking to defend ideological science and the necessity of injecting values into research, and this defense is also a result of a misunderstanding of the approach of recent social science paradigms about the presence of values in the research and thus the article has been rejected. By presenting the sources of the sentences, the author has argued that the reviewer's understanding was not sympathetic and whether the research is ideological or not, is not the subject of this article, and then by proposing four binary concepts, that is, "Science/Research", "Direction/Ideological", "The position of the researcher/ The position of government and science policy actors" and "description/prescription", the theoretical position of the article and the nature of research governance have been described