Departmental Bulletin Paper 分野横断・「共-進化」型研究開発プロジェクトの成果検証 : JST-RISTEX環境・エネルギープログラムの事後評価を事例に
Evaluation of R&D Projects of Trans-disciplines and Co-evolution : A Case Study of the JST-RISTEX Environment-Energy R&D Program

重藤, さわ子  ,  堀尾, 正靭

4 ( 2 )  , pp.117 - 137 , 2015-03-17 , 龍谷大学政策学会
本論説では、JST-RISTEX環境・エネルギー領域の事後評価の事例分析を行い、分野横断性・総合性・中長期性、および、社会の多様な主体の参加による現場性の極めて高い課題を対象としたプログラムについては、(1)あらかじめその設計段階から、有限な資金と研究開発期間のなかで目指すべき成果像とそのための戦略を、実施者および評価者が、ともに発見的な議論を通じて明らかにし共有していく必要があること、また、(2)その評価軸・評価基準等については、プログラムが設定したミッションに焦点を絞って設定し共有することが不可欠であること、の2点を指摘した。環境・エネルギー領域では、個別プロジェクトに対する自己検証の試みとして、対象地域社会における「共-進化」創出の有無を一つの評価基準として提案したが、それはなお初歩的なものである。分野横断・中長期・共-進化型プログラムについて、その設計から評価手法まで、今後、様々な立場からのさらなる研究が必要である。 The objective of this study is to examine the whole process of the design, implementation and evaluation of the JST-RISTEX's Environment-Energy R&D program that aimed to develop a socio-technological co-evolution scenario for achieving the social transition into low carbon system. The new and innovative aspects of this program were to include in each project both academia of natural/engineering sciences and of social/humanity sciences as well as local stakeholders from the early stage of scenario building (co-design) and motivating them to commit sustainable local actions together (co-production). However, at the evaluation phase of this program, it was revealed that the evaluation procedures of both individual project as well as the whole program designed prior to the start of the program and operated by the special staff of JST-RISTEX need some methodological rethinking for the future. The mismatch between the evaluation committee and the steering group of the program was initially created just by the insufficient preliminary meeting on the mission of the program and the appropriate evaluation policy. However, it was gradually revealed that the trans-disciplinary and long-term feature of the main theme of the present program was the very reason of the difficulty and that we need to develop a new management and evaluation methodology for such programs. This is because it could seriously affect the evaluation results that the expertise, time scale of concern and experience of local co-evolution projects of each evaluation/advisory committee member could differ very much. In this article we conclude that we need a more careful and cautious design for the adjustment of understanding the mission and method of a program that deals with trans-disciplinary, mid-to-long term and social innovation type of subject assuming that the evaluation process itself is a creative and heuristic one.

Number of accesses :  

Other information