شناسایی دانش‌های پیشران با کمک تکنیک فناوری کلیدی و تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی در استان کرمانشاه

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی به زبان انگلیسی

نویسندگان

• زهرا علی نژاد ¹
• سیدمحمدباقر نجفی ¹
• جمال فتح اللهی ¹
• نادر زالی ²

¹ گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران

² گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead.2021.69249.1021

چکیده

الگوی تولید دانش‌بنیان طی چند دهۀ اخیر تمام مناسبات اقتصادی و اجتماعی را دگرگون نموده است. دستیابی به مزایای این الگو، در گرو توجه جدی به تولید، توزیع و انتشار دانش است. یکی از اساسی‌ترین و مهم‌ترین پیشنیازهای تحقق الگوی تولید دانش‌بنیان به ویژه در مناطق در حال توسعه، انتخاب دانش پیشران است. ضرورت این انتخاب به محدودیت‌های پیش روی جوامع برمی‌گردد. از سویی بودجه‌های دولتی با فشار فزایندۀ مخارج عمومی روبرو هستند و علم و فناوری هم به این بودجه‌ها وابسته است و از سوی دیگر، هزینه‌های سرمایه‌گذاری در حوزه‌های مختلف دانش به طرز سرسام‌آوری در حال افزایش است. بنابراین، پیشبرد همزمان تمام شاخه‌های دانش برای هیچ کشوری حتی جوامع پیشگام و توسعه‌یافته نیز، امکان‌پذیر نیست. مقاله حاضر با هدف شناسایی دانش پیشران بخش کشاورزی استان کرمانشاه انجام شده است. این پژوهش، از منظر روش پاسخ به سوال محوری تحقیق، کیفی و از منظر هدف، کاربردی است. در گام نخست، احصاء فهرست اولیۀ دانش‌های پیشران و مدل سلسله‌مراتبی معیارهای ارزیابی مبتنی بر تکنیک فناوری کلیدی با کمک دو روش اسنادی و نظرسنجی از خبرگان انجام شد. برای استخراج نظر خبرگان، از مصاحبه‌های عمیق و هدفمند، استفاده شد. در نهایت، تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات از طریق تکنیک تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی با کمک نرم‌افزار اکسپرت چویس، انجام شد. این مرحله به وسیلۀ پنل خبرگان اجرا شد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد رشته مهندسی آب با ضریب 233/0 اولویت نخست دانش پیشران استان کرمانشاه است. علوم باغبانی (196/0) و علوم مربوط به بیوتکنولوژی (138/0) نیز، در اولویت دوم و سوم، جای گرفتند. نتایج تحقیق برای بازنگری در سیاست‌‌گذاری‌های آموزشی دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز تحقیقاتی استان، تخصیص بهینه منابع محدود موجود در دستگاه‌های دولتی ذیربط (جهادکشاورزی و مراکز تحقیقاتی مربوطه) و همچنین تعیین خط‌مشی پارک علم و فناوری و مراکز رشد کشاورزی استان، می‌تواند مفید واقع شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• استان کرمانشاه
• اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان
• بخش کشاورزی
• دانش پیشران
• فناوری کلیدی

20.1001.1.20084722.1401.36.2.2.1

موضوعات

• اقتصاد کشاورزی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification of the Leading Knowledge of the Agricultural Sector Using Key Technology Techniques and AHP in Kermanshah Province, Iran

نویسندگان [English]

• Z. Alinezhad ¹
• S.M.B. Najafi ¹
• J. Fathollahi ¹
• N. Zali ²

¹ Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

² Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

چکیده [English]

The pattern of knowledge-based production has recently changed economic and social relations. If one wants to use the benefits of this pattern, they have to pay serious attention to the production, distribution, and dissemination of knowledge; in this regard, Leading Knowledge (LK) plays a vital role in developing areas. However, since government budgets have to be spent for public, especially for science and technology which are too expensive, it is impossible to experience the simultaneous advancement in all branches of knowledge. This qualitative and descriptive analysis adopts an applied approach, and tries to identify the LK of the agricultural sector in Kermanshah province, Iran. First, the initial list of LK and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method based on key technology techniques were prepared through reviewing documents and surveys, i.e. interviews and a panel of experts. In-depth and purposeful interviews were also adopted to extract experts’ opinions. Finally, data were analyzed by a panel of experts using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Expert Choice (EC) software. The results showed that water engineering (0.223), horticultural Science (0.196), and biotechnology (0.138) were listed in order of priority in Kermanshah province. The results can be helpful in revising the educational policies of universities and research centers at the province level, allocating limited resources to the relevant government organziations, Agriculture Jihad and related research centers, and determining the policy of science and technology park and agricultural research centers at the national level.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Agricultural sector
• Kermanshah province
• Key technology
• Knowledge-based economy
• Leading knowledge

مراجع

1. Amanatidou E.E. 2012. Assessing the Contribution of Foresight to a More Participatory,'Knowledge Society'. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Manchester. United Kingdom.‏
2. Amin Nayeri B., Zali N., and Motavaf S.H. 2017. Identification of regional development drivers by scenario Planning. International Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability 1(2): 90-103. https://doi.org/22034/IJUMES.2017.06.15.016.
3. Asian Development Bank. 2014. Innovative Asia. Advancing the Knowledge-Based Economy. Publication Stock No RPT146801-3. Printed in the Philippines. ISBN 978-92-9254-651-9 (Print), 978-92-9254-652-6 (e-ISBN).
4. Conway M. 2015. Foresight: an introduction. Thinking Futures. Melbourne.
5. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. 2014. Innovation report 2014: innovation, research and growth. Policy paper. UK.
6. Economic Analysis and Statistics (EAS). Division of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (DSTI). 1999. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 1999: Benchmarking Knowledge-based Economies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-1999-en.
7. Fatemi M., and Arasti M. 2019. Priority-Setting in Science, Technology and Innovation. Journal of Science & Technology Policy 11(2): 119-133. (In Persian with English abstract). https://dor.org/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.9.4
8. Floriańczyk Z., Janc K., and Czapiewski K. 2012. The importance and diffusion of knowledge in the agricultural sector: the Polish experiences. Geographia Polonica 85(1): 45-56. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.2012.1.4.
9. Gavigan J., Scapolo F., Keenan M., Miles I., Farhi F., Lecoq D., and Di Bartolomeo T. 2001. FOREN (Foresight for Regional Development Network) a practical guide to regional Foresight. Publications of the European Communities.
10. Ghodsipour H. 2005. Process of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic). Tehran. (In Persian)
11. Kalantari E., and Montazer Gh. 2018. Converging evolutions in the future of science and technology: A comparative study of United States, Russia and China. Management Research in Iran 22(1): 241-274. (In Persian with English abstract). https://dor.org/20.1001.1.2322200.1397.22.1.11.0.
12. Kao J.S. 2004. Knowledge economics in the Information Age. Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University. California.
13. Karlsson C., and Rouchy P. 2015. Media clusters and metropolitan knowledge economy. In Handbook on the Economics of the Media. Edward Elgar Publishing.
14. Khosravaninezhad S., Alizadeh A., Noghsan Mohamadi M.R., and Akbari R. 2020. Science and Technology Special Regions; New Approach in Sustainable Development (Case: Science and Technology Special Region of Yazd). Town and Country Planning 12(1): 225-252. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/JTCP.2020.296848.670066.
15. List F. 1904. National System of Political Economy. translated by Motamedi N. 1993. Islamic Culture Publishing Office. Tehran. (In Persian)
16. Management and Planning Organization of Kermanshah. Spatial planning of Kermansha. Management and Planning Organization of Kermanshah. Kermanshah. (In Persian)
17. Martin B.R., and Johnston R. 1999. Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: experiences in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 60(1): 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(98)00022-5.
18. Naghavi S. 2019. The role of knowledge-based economic in the agriculture growth of selected countries with an emphasis on Iran. Agricultural Economics 13(2): 83-105. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22034/IAES.2019.105813.1686.
19. Nourmohammadi M. 2017. Shaping science and technology policy: The next generation of r Public Policy 3(2): 259-269. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/PPOLICY.2017.62839.
20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2018. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-4-en.
21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2004. Knowledge Management Innovation in the Knowledge Economy: Implications for Education and Learning. Oecd Publishing. France. ISBN 92-64-10560-3.
22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2016. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. OECD Publishing. Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en.
23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2021. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021, Times of Crisis and Opportunity. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/75f79015-en.
24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1996. The Knowledge-Based Economy. OCDE/GD (96) 102. Paris.
25. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2013. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013. Oecd Publishing. Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2013-en.
26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1999. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 1999: Benchmarking Knowledge-based Economies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris.
27. Paija L. 2001. The ICT cluster: the engine of knowledge-driven growth in Finland. Innovative Clusters. Oecd Publishing. Paris.
28. ‏Peivasteh S. 2019. STI Policy Making: Social Aspects and Cocequences. Journal of Science & Technology Policy 11(2): 43-57. (In Persian with English abstract). https://dor.org/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.4.9.
29. PorterL. 2010. Technology foresight: types and methods. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 6(1-3): 36-45.
30. Pourmohammadi M.R., Hosseinzadeh K., Ghorbani R., and Zali N. 2011. Reengineering the planning process with emphasize on using foresight. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22111/GDIJ.2010.595.
31. Rahmani A. 2015. Choose leading knowledge in the age of knowledge-based economy; Necessities and criteria. Master's Thesis. Razi University. Kermanshah. (In Persian with English abstract)
32. Rahmani A., Najafi S.M.B., and Karimi M.S. 2019. An introduction to the criteria for selecting leading knowledge. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management 34(2): 489-518. (In Persian with English abstract)
33. Rennie 2000. 21st Century Technologies: Promises and Perils of a Dynamic Future; OECD Forum for the Future-OECD, Paris, 1998, 173 pages, FF140. Futures 32(5): 493-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-3287(99)00089-0.
34. Saaty T.L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences 1(1): 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
35. Sharifzadeh F., Alvani S.M., Rezaei Manesh B., and Mokhtarianpour M. 2013. Implementation barriers of the cultural policies of the first to fourth development programs: A Review of the experiences of cultural m Strategic management Thought 7(1): 33-77. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.30497/SMT.2013.1431.
36. Statistical Center of Iran. Data and Statistics. 2019. National and Regional Accounts & Population and Housing Censuses. Available at https://www.amar.org.ir. (visited 10 April 2019). (In Persian)
37. Stiglitz J. 1999. Public policy for a knowledge economy. Remarks at the Department for Trade and Industry and Center for Economic Policy Research. U.K.
38. Strauss A.L., and Corbin J.M. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Grounded Theory. Translated by Afshar E., Nashr-e Ney. Tehran. (In Persian)
39. The United States Commission on National Security. 2001. US National Security Strategy in the 21st translated by Dehmshghi J., Farhangi B., Rah Chamani A. 2004. Tehran International Studies & Research Institute. Tehran. (In Persian)
40. Uni 2005. UNIDO technology foresight manual: organization and methods. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
41. Vaidya O.S., and Kumar S. 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169(1): 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028.
42. World Bank. 1998. World Development Report: Knowledge for Development. Oxford University Press, New York.
43. World Bank. 2007. Building knowledge economies: Advanced strategies for development. The World Bank. WBI Development Studies. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6957-9.
44. Yuksel N., Cifci H., and Cakir S. 2017. New Foresight Generation and Framework of Foresight. Press Academia Procedia 5(1): 224-233. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.593.
45. Zali N. 2010. Spatial Approach in urban system analysis with emphasis on homogenous and political region concept. (In Persian with English abstract)
46. Zali N. 2012. Planning Pathology in Iran Based on Mission-centrism in Regional Development Policy–Making. (In Persian with English abstract)
47. Zali N. 2013. Deconstruction of the Planning Process in the 21st Century. European Spatial Research and Policy 20(2): 87-98. https://doi.org/10.2478/esrp-2013-0012.
48. Zali N., Tajiik A., and Gholipour M. 2014. An APPLICATION of AHP for PHYSICAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT on new town of Andisheh, Tehran-Iran. Raega-O Espaço Geográfico em Análise, 31: 69-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/raega.v31i0.31449.
49. Zali N. 2013. Strategic forecasting in regional planning and development. Strategic StudiesInstitute.
50. Zali N. 2011. Strategic foresight and regional policy-making with a scenario-writing approach. Quarterly Journal of Strategic Studies (4): 33-54.