Governance of Research: Nature, Scope and Tools

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Management, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

2 , Assistant Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Management, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.


Objective: Directing research and changing its approach, problem and subject is the goal pursued by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental actors (including industry, private sector, social groups, etc.). But how is this Direction and, more precisely, the governance of research possible? This article is designed to answer this and other similar questions.
Methods: The present article is a review of literature and researchers have adopted a narrative review method based on sixteen types of literature reviews. Therefore, based on previous knowledge, they have analyzed the existing literature in the field of Research Governance and classified it into three categories: nature, scope and tools of research governance.
Results: Based on the network of themes and analyses obtained from the literature, the essence of governance and the governance of research was explained as "construction and exercise of authority over interdependent actors". Based on this insight, the existing literature in the field of research governance was classified into two sections: macro and micro approach. The unique features of the research world (especially the prominent role of the micro-level, ie researchers in the science system) cause the critique of the two approaches and, as a result, the combination of approaches and the presentation of the research governance toolkit.
Conclusion: Based on the nature of governance and by combining approaches and considering the unique feature of the science system, the research governance toolkit to change the decision-making situation of researchers or their interpretation of those situations, including styles: forcing researchers, equipping (or not) Researchers, inducing them and re-interpreted those situations. In order to realize and use these tools accurately, the mediation of epistemological features of different fields in this effect as well as possible reactions of researchers to these tools have been investigated.


Aagaard, K. (2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 725–737.
Abbaszadeh, M. (2019). The effect of non-epistemic factors on knowledge in Farabi's philosophy, New Rational Research, 3 (5), 55-75. (in Persian)
Abdolhamid, M. & Abdolhosseinzadeh, M. (2018). Providing Coordinates for the Sub-systems of School of Governance through the Application of a Comparative Study on Elected Schools of Governance. Journal of Public Administration, 9(3), 359-378. (in Persian)
Akbari, R., Shokraei, Y. (2008) The effect of non-epistemic factors on the Islamization of universities, in: Eftekhari, A, Value and Knowledge: Introduction to Islamic University, Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural and Social Studies & Imam Sadegh A.S University. (in Persian)
Auranen, O, & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance- An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834.
Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.
Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and “The Nature of the Firm.” The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2016). Building Multidisciplinary Research Fields: The Cases of Materials Science, Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology. in M. Merz and Ph.Sormani, eds., The Local Configuration of New Research Fields, Dordrecht, Springer International Publishing: 45 - 60.
Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities, Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169-180.
Berman, E. (2012). Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine. oxford: Princeton University Press.
Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blaikie, N.W. H (2017) Designing social researich: the logic of anticipation (Translated by: Hassan Chavoshian,), Tehran: Ney. (in Persian)
Bloch, C., Graversen, E. K., & Pedersen, H. S. (2014). Competitive Research Grants and Their Impact on Career Performance. Minerva, 52(1), 77–96.
Bloor, D. ( 1991). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Braun, D. & Merrien, F. (1999) Government of Universities and Modernisation of the State: Analytical Aspects, in D. Braun and F.-X. Merrien (eds.), Higher Education Policy: Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? London: Jessica Kingsley, 10–33.
Braun, D. (1993). Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(02), 135.
Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807–821.
Braun, D. (2003). Lasting Tensions in research Policy-Making – A delegation problem, Science and Public Policy, 30, 309-321.
Brooks, H. (1990). Lessons of History: Successive challenges to science policy, in Susan E. Cozzens, Peter Healey, Arie Rip and John Ziman (eds.), The Research System in Transition, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 11-22.
Brunet, P. & Dubois, M. (2012). Stem cells and technoscience: sociology of the emergence and regulation of a field of biomedical research. Translated by Peter Hamilton. in France: Revue française de sociologie, 53(3), 391-428.
Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science. London: Routledge.
Bush, V. (1995). Science, the endless frontier. Stratford: Ayer Company Publishers
Capano, G., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. (2015). Varieties of Governance Dynamics, Strategies, Capacities. new york: palgrave macmillan.
Chalmers, A.F. (2011). What is this thing called science? an assessment of the nature and stotus of scienee and its methods (Saeed Zibakalam, trans.), Qom: Yaran. (in Persian)
Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
Considine, M., & Lewis, J. (2003). Bureaucracy, Network, or Enterprise? Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, (63), 131-140.
Cozzens, S. (1986). Editor's Introduction s of Science, Theme Section: 'Funding and Knowledge Growth'. Social Studies of Science, 16(1), 9-21.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (Hassan Danaeifard and Hossein Kazemi, Trans.), Tehran: Saffar-Ishraqi.
(in Persian)
Crouch, C. (2005). Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curry, D, J. & Fischer, N. M. (1986). Public Higher Education and the State: Models for Financing, Budgeting, and Accountability, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, Tex., Feb. 1986:
D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.
Dalpé, R., & Anderson, F. (1995). National priorities in academic research-strategic research and contracts in renewable energies. Research Policy, 24(4), 563–581.
Danaeifard, H., Suzanchi, H., Javan Ali Azar, M. (2017). Explaining the requirements for creating change in scientific societies; A case study of the biography of Allameh Tabatabai (RA) in creating a change in the seminary of Qom. Strategic Management Thought (Management Thought), 10 (1), 5-58. (in Persian)
Danaeifard, H., Alvani, M., Azar, A. (2008). Methodology of Qualitative Research in Management: A Comprehensive Perspective, Saffar-Eshraghi, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)
Deboer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: the organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.
Deghati, A., Yaghoubi, N.M., Kamalian, A.R., & Dehghani, M. (2019). Presenting a Phased Development Pattern of Network Governance Using a Meta-synthesis Approach. Journal of Public Administration, 11(2), 203-230. (in Persian)
Dixon, J. & Dogan, R. (2002). Hierarchies, networks and markets: responses to societal governance failure. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(1) 175-196.
Eltzinga, A. & Jamison, A. (1995). Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology’, in S. Jasanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
Farazmand, A. (2005). Sound governance: Policy and administrative innovations. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ferlie, E., Christine, M. and Gianluca, A. (2009). The Governance of Higher Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective, in C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie, eds., University Governance––Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht, Springer Science and Business Media, 1 – 20.
Fine, A. (1996). Science made up: Constructivist sociology of scientific knowledge. In The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, Edited by: Galison, P. and Stump, D. 231–54. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Franssen, T., Scholten, W., Hessels, L. K., & de Rijcke, S. (2018). The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding. Minerva, 56(1), 11–33.
Frederickson, H.G., Smith, K.B., Larimer, C.W., & Licari, M.J. (2012). The public administration theory primer, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Frickel, S. (2014). Absences: Methodological Note about Nothing, in Particular. Social Epistemology, 28(1), 86–95.
Frickel, S., Moore, K. (2006). The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. University of Wisconsin Press.
Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. J. (2009). Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473.
Fujimura, J. (1987). Constructing ‘do-able’ problems in cancer research: articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science 17: 257–293.
Glaser, J. & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing Science. European Journal of Sociology, 57, 117-168.
Glaser, J. (2019). How can governance change research content? Linking science policy studies to the sociology of science, In Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing,
Glaser, J. (2010). From Governance to Authority Relations? In Whitley, R., Gläser, J., Engwall, L. (2010). Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation, Oxford University Press.
Glaser, J. (2012). How does Governance change research content? The Technical University Technology Studies, Working Paper. presented on November 16th 2011 at Werner Rammert’s Research Colloquium at the TU Berlin.
Glaser, J., Aljets, E., Gorga, A., Hedmo, T., Hakansson, E. and Laudel, G. (2014). Path dependence and policy steering in the social sciences: the varied impact of international large scale student assessment on the educational sciences in four European countries. In Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser (eds), Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation. Bingley: Emerald Group, 267–295.
Glaser, J., Guagnin, D., Laudel, G., Meister, M., Schäufele, F., Schubert, C. and Tschida, U. (2017). Comparing scripts and scripting comparisons: toward a systematic analysis of technologically mediated influence. Berlin Script Collective. TUTS Working Papers.
Glaser, J., Lange, S., Laudel, G. and Schimank, U. (2010). The limits of universality: how field-specific epistemic conditions affect authority relations and their consequences. In Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser and Lars Engwall (eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–324.
Gläser, J. (2000). Limits of change: cognitive constraints on “postmodernization” and the political redirection of science. Social Science Information, 39(3), 439–465.
Gordon, P., Richardson, W. H. (1997). Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63 (1), 95–106.
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117.
Grieser, C. (2018). The Influence of Companies on Scientific Communities. A Qualitative Study of German Automotive Engineering. Master’s Thesis. Berlin, TU Berlin.
Gross, M. (2007). The Unknown in Process: Dynamic Connections of Ignorance, Non-Knowledge and Related Concepts. Current Sociology, 55(5), 742–759.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative resea rch (pp. 105- 11 7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (p. 191–215). Sage Publications Ltd.
Guston, D. H. (1996). Principal-Agent Theory and the Structure of Science Policy. Science and Public Policy, 23, 229-240.
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.
Hackett, E. (1987). Funding and academic research in the life sciences: results of an exploratory study. Science and Technology Studies 5(3/4), 134–147.
Hackett, E. (2005). Essential Tensions: Identity, Control, and Risk in Research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787–826.
Hayek, F.A. (1991). Spontaneous (“Grown”) Order and Organized (“Made”) Order, in. Thompson, G J. Frances, R. Levacic, and J. Mitchell (eds.), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life, London: Sage.
Heinrich, C. J. )2011(. Public management. In The Sage Handbook of Governance, ed. M. Bevir. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heinze, T. (2008). How to sponsor ground-breaking research: a comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy, 35(5), 302–318.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38(4), 610–623.
Hess, D. J. (2007). Alternative pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.
Hill, C. J., Lynn Laurence, E. (2005). Is Hierarchical Governance in Decline? Evidence from Empirical Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 173–195.
Hodgson Molyneux, S., & Meyer, M. (2009). Tales of Emergence—Synthetic Biology as a Scientific Community in the Making. BioSocieties, 4(2-3), 129–145.
Hoeppe, G. (2014). Working data together: The accountability and reflexivity of digital astronomical practice. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 243–270.
Hollingsworth, J. (2008). Scientific Discoveries: An Institutionalist and Path-Dependent Perspective, in C. Hannaway, ed., Biomedicine in the Twentieth Century: Practices, Policies, and Politics, Bethesda, National Institutes of Health: 317 – 353.
Huutoniemi, K. (2012). Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals. Social Studies of Science, 42(6), 897–921.
Jessop, B. (2002). Governance, governance failure and meta-governance. In: Getimis, P. and Kafkalas, G. (eds.), Participatory governance and multi-level governance, Leske & Budrich, 2002, pp. 33-58.
Jessop, B. (2016). State theory. In Ansell, C. K., & Torfing, J., Handbook on theories of governance, MA, USA Edward Elgar.
Karimmian, Z., Mohammadi, M., Ghazinoori, S.S., & Zolfagharzadeh Kermani, M.M. (2019). Classification of Governance Features through Policy Networks Using Meta-synthesis Method. Journal of Public Administration, 11(3), 377-402. (in Persian)
Kaufmann, D. )2003(. Rethinking Governance: Empirical Lessons Challenge Orthodoxy. Washington: World Bank Institute.
Kearnes, M., & Wienroth, M. (2011). Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts. Minerva, 49(2), 153–174.
Kerridge, S. R., Stephanie, S. (2018) Research Administration around the World, Research Management Review, 23(1), 1-34.
Kettl, D. F. (2002). Transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23, 285-314.
Kleinman, D. L., & Suryanarayanan, S. (2012). Dying Bees and the Social Production of Ignorance. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(4), 492–517.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). How Superorganisms Change: Consensus Formation and the Social Ontology of High-energy Physics Experiments. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 119–147.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. )1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Knudsen, C., & Tsoukas, H. (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern governance: New government - society interactions. London: Sage.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: SAGE.
Krimsky, S. (2012). Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(4), 566–587.
Kulakowski, E. C., & Chronister, L. U. (2011). Research administration and management. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Lam, A. (2010). From “Ivory Tower Traditionalists” to “Entrepreneurial Scientists”? Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307–340.
Lamont M, (2009). How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, Harvard, Harvard University.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Laudel G, and Weyer, E. (2014). Where have all the Scientists Gone? Building Research Profiles at Dutch Universities and its Consequences for Research”, in R. Whitley and J. Glaser, eds., Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Re-structuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation, Bingley, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 111 - 140.
Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: how scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.
Laudel, G., & Glaser, J. (2007). From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of Early Career Researchers. Higher Education, 55(3), 387–406.
Laudel, G., & Glaser, J. (2014). Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy, 43(7), 1204–1216.
Laurence, E., Lynn, Jr. (2010). Governance. Foundations of Public Administration.
Laurence E., Lynn, Jr. (2012). The Many Faces of Governance: Adaptation? Transformation? Both? Neither? In The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Ed. David Levi-Faur. Oxford University Press. 2012.
Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford, Blackwell.
Lee, M. (2003). Conceptualizing the New Governance: A new institution of social coordination. Paper presented at the Institutional Analysis and Development Mini-Conference, May 3rd and 5th, 2003, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Leisytė, L (2007). University Governance and Academic Research: Case Studies of Research Units in Dutch and English Universities. Dissertation to obtain the doctor’s degree at the University of Twente.
Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., van der Meulen, B. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: what patterns of change? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.
Liebsch, M., Grune, B., Seiler, A., Butzke, D., Oelgeschläger, M., Pirow, R., Luch, A. (2011). Alternatives to animal testing: current status and future perspectives. Archives of Toxicology, 85(8), 841–858.
Louvel, S. )2010). Changing Authority Relations within French Academic Research Units since the 1960 s: From Patronage to Partnership. In R. Richard Whitley, J. Glaser and L. Engwall, eds., Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 184 – 210.
Luukkonen, T. )2012). Conservatism and Risk-Taking in Peer Review: Emerging Erc Practices, Research Evaluation, 21(1), 48 – 60.
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mahdi, S., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Key National Factors in the Emergence of Computational Chemistry Firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 01(04), 355–386.
Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219–1239.
Mayntz, R. (1998). Socialist academies of sciences: the enforced orientation of basic research at user needs. Research Policy, 27(8), 781–791.
McDaniel, O. (1996). The paradigms of governance in higher education systems. High Educ Policy 9, 137–158.
Meier, F. & Schimank, U. (2010). Mission Now Possible: Profile Building and Leadership in German Universities, in R. Richard Whitley, J. Glaser and L. Engwall, eds., Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 211 - 236 .
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets. The Netherlands: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
Mirbagheri, S. M. M. (2010). Aspects of the Scienses from the Epistemology Viewpiont, Qom: Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture. (in Persian)
Mohammadpour, A. (2010). Anti-Method: Logic and Design in Qualitative Methodology, Tehran: Sociologists. (in Persian)
Morris, N. (2000). Science policy in action: policy and the researcher. Minerva, 38(4), 425–451.
Morris, N. (2003). Academic researchers as “agents” of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 359–370.
Mouzelis, N. P. (2008) Organization and bureaucracy: an analysis of modern theories. London: Routledge.
Mulkay, M. J., Gilbert, G. N., & Woolgar, S. (1975). Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science. Sociology, 9(2), 187–203.
Musselin, C. (2013). How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy, 42(5), 1165–1173.
Neuman, W.L. (2013). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (Hassan Danaeifard, Seyed Hossein Kazemi, Trans.) Tehran: Mehraban. (in Persian)
Noordzij, M., Zoccali, C., Dekker, F. W., & Jager, K. J. (2011). Adding Up the Evidence: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nephron Clinical Practice, 119(4), c310–c316.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145.
Owen, R., Pansera, M. (2019). Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation, In Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Owen-Smith, J. (2001). Managing Laboratory Work through Skepticism: Processes of Evaluation and Control. American Sociological Review, 66(3), 427.
Panofsky, A. (2011). Generating sociability to drive science: Patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 31–57.
Paradeise, C., Emanuela, R. and Gaele, G. (2009). A Comparative Approach to Higher Education Reforms in Western Europe. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie, eds., University Governance—Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media: 197 – 245.
Parsania, H. (2014). Theory and culture: The basic methodology of the development of scientific theories. Journal of Cultural Strategy, 6 (23), 7-28. (in Persian)
Pavitt, K. (2001). Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn). Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 761–779.
Pelz, C. and Andrews, F. (1966). Scientists in organizations. Productive Climates for Research and Development, New York, Wiley.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
Peters, G. (2000). Governance in the Twenty-first Century: Revitalizing the Public Service. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Polich, G. R. (2012). Rare disease patient groups as clinical researchers. Drug Discovery Today, 17(3-4), 167–172.
Pols, J. (2013). Knowing Patients, Turning Patient Knowledge into Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(1), 73–97.
Powell, W. W. (1991). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organisation. In: G. Thompson et al.(eds): Markets, hierarchies and networks. Adapted from Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12, 295-336.
Rabeharisoa, V., Moreira, T., & Akrich, M. (2014). Evidence-based activism: Patients’, users’ and activists’ groups in knowledge society. BioSocieties, 9(2), 111–128.
Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Maidenhead: Open university press.
Rhodes, R. A. (1995). The new governance: Governing without government. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
Rijcke, S. de, Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2015). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169.
Root, M. (2010). Philosophy of social science: the methods, ideals, and Policies of social Research (Mohammad Shojaeian, Trans.), Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural and Social Studies. (in Persian)
Rosenau, J. N. (2004). Strong demand, huge supply: governance in an emerging epoch. In Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders (eds), Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.
Ruivo, B. (1994). 'Phases' or 'paradigms' of science policy?  Science and Public Policy, 21, 157-164.
Salarzehi, H. & Ebrahimpour, H. (2013). Investigating the evolution of public management paradigms: from the traditional public management paradigm to the good governance paradigm. Journal of Public Administration, 4 (9), 43-62. (in Persian)
Salimi, J., Maknoon, R. (2019). Qualitative meta-analysis of scientific research on governance in Iran. Journal of Public Administration, 10 (1), 1-30. (in Persian)
Schimank, U. (2005). ‘New Public Management’ and the Academic Profession: Reflections on the German Situation. Minerva, 43, 361–376.
Schneider, J. W., Aagaard, K., & Bloch, C. W. (2015). What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 244–256.
Sellers, J. (2011). State–society relations. In M. Bevir The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 124-141). SAGE Publications Ltd,
Sherratt, Y. (2016). Continental philosophy of social science: hermeneutics, genealogy, critical theory (Hadi Jalili, Trans.), Tehran: Ney. (in Persian)
Starbuck, W. H. (2003). The Origins of Organization Theory, in Knudsen, C., & Tsoukas, H. (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stehr, N., & Weingart, P. (2000). Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stewart I. (1948). Organizing Scientific Research for War: The Administrative History of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Boston: Little, Brown and Company
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.
Stoker, G. (2018). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 68(227-228), 15–24.
Tabaghchi Akbari, L., Babazadeh, M., Sameei, Gh., Akhundzadeh Yousefi, T. (2020). The Effects of Good Governance and Financial Reforms on Total Factor Productivity in Iran's Industry and Mining Sector. Journal of Public Administration, 12(2), 263-290.
(in Persian)
Thompson, G. (2010). Between hierarchies and markets: The logic and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action: social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J. (1991). Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life, London: Sage.
Travis, G. D. L., & Collins, H. M. (1991). New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(3), 322–341.
Van den Besselaar, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 273–288.
Van der Meulen, B. (1998). Science policies as principal–agent games. Research Policy, 27(4), 397–414.
Van Vught, F., de Boer, H. (2015) Governance Models and Policy Instruments. In: Huisman J., de Boer H., Dill D.D., Souto-Otero M. (eds) The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Van Vught, F. A. (1988). A new autonomy in European higher education? an exploration and analysis of the strategy of self-regulation in higher education governance, International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 12(1), 16–27.
Van Vught, F.A. (1992). Autonomy and Accountability in Government-University Relationships, paper presented at the World Bank Worldwide Senior Policy Seminar on Improvement and Innovation of Higher Education in Developing Countries. Kuala Lumpur, June 30–July 4.
Van Vught, F. A. (1995). Policy models and policy instruments in higher education.The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions. Vienna, IHS Political Science Series 26.
Vaughan, D. (1999). The Role of the Organization in the Production of Techno-Scientific Knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 913–943.
Voss, J. (2007). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD thesis. Enschede: University of Twente, School of Management and Governance.
Waters, T., Waters, D. (2015). Weber’s rationalism and modern society: new translations on politics, bureaucracy, and social stratification, Palgrave Macmillan
Weber, M., & Parsons, T. (1964). Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization / c. New York: Free Press.
Whitley, R. (2010). Reconfiguring the public sciences: the impact of governance changes on authority and innovation in public science systems. In R. Whitley, Jochen Gläser and Lars Engwall (eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–47.
Whitley, R. (2014). How do institutional changes affect scientific innovations? The effects of shifts in authority relationships, protected space, and flexibility. In Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser (eds), Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation. Bingley: Emerald Group, 367–406.
Whitley, R. (2007). Changing governance of the public sciences. In The changing governance of the sciences (pp. 3-27). Springer, Dordrecht.
Whitley, R. (2011). Changing Governance and Authority Relations in the Public Sciences. Minerva, 49(4), 359–385.
Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (2007). The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Dordrecht, Springer.
Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2018). The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Relationships on Scientific Innovations. Minerva, 56(1), 109–134.
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1) 93–112.
Zuckerman, H. (1973 ). Age, aging, and age structure in science. In Robert K. Merton (ed.), The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 497–559.