Document Type : Pazhoheshi- Karbordi

Authors

1 PhD Student at the Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought

2 Professor of Malek Ashtar University of Technology

Abstract

Women make up half of the country's educated population and have an important contribution to development of society. Due to the importance of science and technology in the country's development, policymakers have adopted policies for the participation of women in this area. However, so far, a model for evaluating these policies has not been presented. In this paper, initially, by reviewing the subject literature and carrying out expert interviews, the dimensions and components of policy evaluation were considered and the initial model was proposed. This model was tested through a questionnaire using 43 female researchers and 36 policy makers. Accordingly, the final model consists of seven dimensions (policy objectives, policy assumptions, institutional matching, policy design, policy implementation, resource adequacy, and outcomes), and a total of 15 components and 41 indicators. The research method is applied, cross-sectional, descriptive, survey and hybrid, which has been developed by generating distribution tables using SPSS. The results of the mean tests showed that the model was approved for both societies. Finally, based on this research, policy recommendations were presented.

Keywords

[1] امامی میبدی، راضیه؛ اشتریان،کیومرث (1391). «طراحی نظام ارزیابی سیاست‌های عمومی در جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، پژوهش‌نامة علوم سیاسی.
[2] بوشهری، علیرضا؛ باقری، ابوالفضل (1395). ارزیابی سیاست‌های علم و فناوری: موردکاوی به‌کارگیری نخبگان وظیفه در پروژه‌های تحقیقاتی»، مجلة بهبود مدیریت، دورة 10، ش 33، پاییز، ص 107ـ129.
[3] طباطبائیان، سید حبیب‌الله؛ فاتح‌راد، مهدی؛ شجاعی، سید محمدحسین؛ سلطان‌زاده، جواد (1391). ارزیابی سیاست‌های علم و فناوری، ناشر، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
[4] قاضی‌نوری، سپهر و سروش (1391). سیاست‌گذاری تولید علم و فناوری و نوآوری، تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
[5] Aligica, P. (2005). ‘Institutional analysis and economic development policy: notes on the applied agenda of the Bloomington School. Extending Peter Boettke and Christopher Coyne’s Outline of the Research Program of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57(2), PP 159–165.
[6] Amblard, L. & Mann. C. (2011). ‘Ex-ante institutional compatibility assessment of policy options. Methodological insights from a case study on the Nitrate Directive in Auvergne. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis (Routledge): STM, Behavioural’. Science and Public Health Titles, 2011, 54 (5), PP 661 -684.
[7] Bikar, V., Capron, H. & Cincera, M., 2004. An Integrated Scheme for the Evaluation on Institutional set-Ups: The case of the Belgian Regional Innovation system. Working Paper- Universite Libre De Bruxelles.
[8] Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation (BMSF). (2004). Step-By-Step Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
[9] Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J., Tübke, A., Zinöcker, K., ETH, S. A., ... & Woitech, B. (2002). RTD evaluation toolbox. Seville: European Commission.
[10] Fornell, C., &Lacker, D.F. (1981). ‘Evaluation structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error’. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), PP 39-50.
[11] Hansen, H, F. (2005), Choosing Evaluation Models: A Discussion on Evaluation Design.
[12] Kellogg, W. K. (2004). Logic model development guide. Michigan: WK Kellogg Foundation.
[13] Keskitalo, E. C.H.; M. Legay, M. Marchetti, S. Nocentini, P. Spathelf (2015) ‘The role of forestry in national climate change adaptation policy: cases from Sweden, Germany, France and Italy’. International Forestry Review 17(1): PP 30-42.
[14] Knowles, J. (2007). Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods Program, Cambodia (2006 – 2010): Draft Strategy For Monitoring And Evaluation Phnom Penh. Royal Danish Embassy (Cambodia). Cited in 1.
[15] Kusek, J. Z., & Rist, R. C. (2004). Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: a handbook for development practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
[16] Ostrom, E., (2005a). ‘Doing Institutional Analysis- Digging Deeper Than Markets and Hierarchies. In: Handbook of new Institutional Economics’. Netherland: Springer, PP 819-848.
[17] Stewart, J., Jr., Hedge, D. M., & Lester, J. P. (2008). Public policy: An evolutionary approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
[18] Swanson, D. et al., (2010). ‘Seven tools for creating adaptive policies’. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(6), PP 924-939.
[19] Sidney, M.S. Policy Formulation: Design and Tools. In Fischer, F., Sidney, M.S. & Miller, G. J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[20] Theesfeld, I., Schleyer, C. & Aznar, O., (2010). ‘The Procedure for institutional compatibility assessment: ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective’. Journal of Institutional Economics, PP 377-399.
[21] Wollmann, H. (2006). Policy Evaluation and Evaluation Research. In: In Fischer, F., Sidney, M.S. & Miller, G. J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of public policy analysis.