Virtual space and social media studies

Virtual space and social media studies

Requirements for creating a sustainable ecosystem In the field of cyberspace policy evaluation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Somaye bakeshlu 1
seyyed razi aghaseyyedi 2
1 PhD student in Culture and Communication, Department of Islamic Studies, Culture and Communication, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Culture and Communication, Imam Sadiq University
2 PhD student in Public Administration, Department of Public Administration, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
10.22083/cssms.2025.559307.1086
Abstract
Introduction: With the expansion of the Internet and the emergence of profound changes in interpersonal communication, social interactions and systems, as well as transformations in public governance, cyberspace has been introduced to policymakers as a new domain of governance. Due to the distinctive characteristics of cyberspace, the stages of the policy-making cycle in this context have been confronted with new approaches. The present study aims to identify the requirements for establishing a sustainable ecosystem for evaluating cyberspace policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran and emphasizes the necessity of effective governance in this complex domain.
Methods:  This research is exploratory in nature and was conducted using a qualitative approach and a content analysis method. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 11 experts in the field of cyberspace policymaking.
Results: Analysis of the findings indicates that the cyberspace policy evaluation ecosystem in Iran is unstable and faces numerous challenges. Within the policy-making cycle, and based on theoretical frameworks of multi-stakeholder governance and cyber resilience, transformation requirements are identified at three pivotal levels: the institutional level, the technological level, and the conceptual and participatory level. At the institutional level, the establishment of a cross-sectoral evaluation body is proposed to enable monitoring, resolve role conflicts, and integrate policies. At the technological level, emphasis is placed on the development of indigenous infrastructure and technologies to enhance cyber resilience. At the conceptual and participatory level, the redefinition of indigenous evaluation indicators that simultaneously encompass cybersecurity, economic considerations, and socio-cultural values, along with the design of mechanisms for active stakeholder participation, is proposed and examined.
Discussion:  The discussion concludes that the instability of the ecosystem stems from intertwined governance, institutional, and resilience-related deficiencies. Therefore, a holistic and integrated reform strategy is essential. This research offers a roadmap for policymakers to develop an evidence-based, agile, and legitimate evaluation system, which is crucial for effective digital governance within Iran’s complex socio-technical context.
Keywords
Evaluation
Policy-Making
Cyberspace Governance
Sustainable Ecosystem
Subjects
Hajatpour, S., Abbasi, H., Malmir, A., & Sarihi, R. (2020). Presenting an Evaluation Model for the Effectiveness of Implementing the Five-Year Development Plan Policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Social Security Organization.‌Social Cultural Strategy, 9(4), 93-124. [In Persian]
Asadifard (2016).‌Designing a model for analyzing public policy in Iran‌[PhD thesis]. tarbiat modares university. [In Persian]
Danaei Fard, H., Shokri, Z., Kheirgoo, M., & Fani, A. A. (2018). How to evaluate the quality of public policies in Iran: An exploratory research based on mixed methodology.‌Public Organizations Management, 6(2), 79-94. [In Persian] 
Shahsavari, H. R., Taheri Goodarzi, H., & Kameli, M. J. (2022). Identifying components and indicators of the evaluation model of industrial policies with a production boom approach in small and medium business clusters.‌Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 17(66), 145-168. [In Persian] 
Danaei Fard, H., Shokri, Z., Kheirgoo, M., & Fani, A. A. (2018). How to evaluate the quality of public policies in Iran: An exploratory research based on mixed methodology.‌Public Organizations Management, 6(2), 79-94. [In Persian]
Dadgar, Y. (2004).‌History of developments in economic thought. Tehran: Mofid University. [In Persian]
Hajatpour, S., Abbasi, H., Malmir, A., & Sarihi, R. (2020). Presenting an evaluation model for the effectiveness of implementing the five-year development plan policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Social Security Organization.‌Social Cultural Strategy, 9(4), 93-124. [In Persian]
Khanifar, H., & Moslemi, N. (2017).‌Principles and foundations of qualitative research methods: A new and practical approach‌(Vol. 1). Tehran: Negah Danesh Publication. [In Persian]
Kiyavani Amina, M. (2004). Introduction to institutionalism school.‌Research Journal (Imam Sadiq University), (22), 91-120. [In Persian]
Gholaichi, M., Rahnama, F., & Mortazavi, M. (2023). A model for evaluating the successful implementation of industrial property policy.‌Science and Technology Policy Letters, 13(1), 40-61. [In Persian]
Soltani, A. M., & Tabatabaeian, S. H. (2019). Evaluation of science, technology and innovation policies.‌Science and Technology Policy, 11(2), 561-578. [In Persian]
Shahsavari, H. R., Taheri Goodarzi, H., & Kameli, M. J. (2022). Identifying components and indicators of the evaluation model of industrial policies with a production boom approach in small and medium business clusters.‌Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 17(66), 145-168. [In Persian]
Tabatabaeian, S. H., Fatehrad, M., Shojaei, S. M., & SoltanZadeh, J. (2012).‌Evaluation of science, technology and innovation policies. Tehran: Scientific Research Center. [In Persian]
Vaezi, R., Sharifzadeh, F., & Mohammadi, M. (2015). Identification and prioritization of public policy evaluation patterns.‌Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 10(40), 1-41. [In Persian]
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2005). The institutional approach. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.),‌Theory and methods in political science‌(pp. 90-108). (A. M. Haj Yousefi, Trans.). Tehran: Strategic Research Center. (Original work published 1995). [In Persian]
Ang, I. (1985).‌Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Methuen.
Basu, S., Gottschalk, J., Schule, W., Vellodi, N., & Yang, S. (2013).‌The macroeconomic effects of natural resource extraction: Applications to Papua New Guinea‌(IMF Working Paper No. 13/138). International Monetary Fund.‌ 
Bernanke, B. S., Gertler, M., & Gilchrist, S. (1999). The financial accelerator in a quantitative business cycle framework. In J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.),‌Handbook of macroeconomics‌(Vol. 1, pp. 1341-1393). Elsevier.‌ 
Bodeau, D., Graubart, R., Heinbockel, W., & Laderman, E. (2015).‌Cyber resiliency engineering aid guidance on applying cyber resiliency techniques. The MITRE Corporation.
Brush, C. G. (2014). Exploring the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. In‌Innovative pathways for university entrepreneurship in the 21st century‌(pp. 25-39). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.‌https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-473620140000024000
Conklin, W. A., & Shoemaker, D. (2017). Cyber-resilience: Seven steps for institutional survival.‌EDPACS, 55(2), 14-22.‌https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2017.1311445
Coryn, C. L. S., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (2014).‌Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Jossey-Bass.
Cousins, J. B. (1996). Consequences of researcher involvement in participatory evaluation.‌Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 3–27.
DeNardis, L. (2016).‌The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press.
Dye, T. R. (2013).‌Understanding public policy. Prentice Hall.
Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011).‌Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989).‌Fourth generation evaluation‌(1st ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hofmann, J. (2016). Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance: Putting a fiction into practice.‌Journal of Cyber Policy, 1(1), 29–49.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009).‌Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems‌(3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.‌https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900007423
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).‌Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989).‌Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press.
Miles, I., Cunningham, P., Cox, D., Crowe, C., & Malik, K. (2006).‌Smart innovation: A practical guide to evaluating innovation programmes. European Commission.
Musiani, F. (2013). WSIS+10: The self-praising feast of multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance.‌Internet Policy Review, 2(2).‌http://policyreview.info/articles/
Owen, J. M. (2020).‌Program evaluation: Forms and approaches‌(3rd ed.). Routledge.‌https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116875
Pangarkar, S. C., Paigude, S. D., Rahangdale, P., Patil, M., & Waghulde, K. B. (2024). Evaluating cyber security policies: A global perspective on best practices.‌Computer Fraud and Security, 2024(7), Article 36v.‌https://doi.org/10.52710/cfs.36v
Peters, B. G. (2005). The problem of policy problems.‌Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 7(4), 349-370.
Theodotou, M., Christoforou, C., & Anayiotos, C. P. (2012).‌Cyprus entrepreneurship ecosystem: A roadmap for economic growth. Curveball66 Ltd.
The University of Texas at Austin. (2015).‌The Texas politics project.‌https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/
Malta Association of Risk Management (MARM). (2013). Cyber Resilience. Retrieved from marm.org.mt: http://www.slideshare.net/ianstaf/cyber-resilience-donald-tabone
Virtual space and social media studies
Volume 2, Issue 4 - Serial Number 8
Winter 2026
Pages 135-165

  • Receive Date 12 November 2025
  • Revise Date 02 December 2025
  • Accept Date 07 December 2025
  • First Publish Date 07 December 2025
  • Publish Date 22 December 2025