alireza ghorbani; Mahdi Hamzehpour; ali asghar kia
Abstract
The governance of cyberspace in the Islamic Republic of Iran is faced with numerous challenges, leading to governance in this field being significantly far from the ideal point. The aim of this research is to identify the major factors affecting the improvement of the governance of cyberspace in the ...
Read More
The governance of cyberspace in the Islamic Republic of Iran is faced with numerous challenges, leading to governance in this field being significantly far from the ideal point. The aim of this research is to identify the major factors affecting the improvement of the governance of cyberspace in the Islamic Republic of Iran, prioritize them, and provide strategic recommendations for each of them. In the first step, through semi-structured interviews with 11 experts and then analyzing their content, the components and factors affecting the improvement of cyberspace governance performance were identified. These components encompass the following elements: (1) the fundamental theory and governance model of cyberspace, (2) institutional structure, (3) laws and regulations, (4) macro policies and strategies, (5) the manner of interaction between governance and countries, institutions, and international companies, (6) the manner of interaction between governance and the private sector, (7) the manner of interaction between governance and individuals and non-governmental organizations, (8) the manner of interaction between governance and scientific and research institutions, (9) Officials and agents of cyberspace governance system, (10) Corruption, conflict. In the second step of the research, the importance-performance analysis (IPA) method was employed to assess the components of cyberspace governance identified in the first step. A questionnaire was distributed to 21 experts and specialists in the field of cyberspace governance to gather their insights on the relative importance and performance of each component. After data analysis, using the four-quadrant IPA matrix and the "normalized characteristic weight" table, the priority of each of the eleven components (such as the fundamental theory and governance model of cyberspace, institutional structure, laws and regulations, etc.) was determined. Additionally, strategic recommendations were provided for each of the eleven components to guide their improvement and effective governance.After analysis using the IPA method, the following prioritization of factors is proposed:The method of governance interaction with the private sectorFundamental theory and model of cyberspace governanceThe method of governance interaction with the public and public institutionsInstitutional structureThe method of governance interaction with countries, international institutions, and companiesThe method of governance interaction with academic and research institutionsCorruption, conflict of interest, and monopolyPolicies and grand strategiesOfficials and agents of the cyberspace governance systemLaws and regulationsEnemy infiltrationBased on the positioning of the above factors in each of the four quadrants of the IPA matrix, the following strategic recommendations are suggested: Strategy for the First Quadrant (keeping up the good work):The institutional structure component is positioned in the first quadrant, indicating that its importance is high based on experts' opinions. Regarding its performance, it lies near the border area between the first and fourth quadrants. As a result, the relative performance value of this component lies in the borderline range, meaning that there is room for improvement in its implementation and effectiveness. Component 4, represented by "Policies and grand strategies," has a high relative importance, as it falls in the first quadrant. Additionally, its relative performance value is also high, indicating its current effectiveness in governance of cyberspace. Therefore, this component is considered to need less improvement compared to the other factors. This implies that the policies and grand strategies in place are mostly sound, but there is room for further refinement to enhance the overall effectiveness of the governance of cyberspace. Strategy for the Second Quadrant (waste of resources):Component 11, representing "Enemy infiltration," is situated in the second quadrant, indicating that it has low relative importance, yet its relative performance value is high. This scenario may suggest that the resources devoted to mitigate this factor are potentially excessive or disproportionate to its actual significance. Consequently, it is recommended that this factor be removed from the agenda in order to allocate resources more efficiently and focus on factors that possess higher importance values. Components 3 (Laws and regulations) and 9 (Officials and agents of the cyberspace governance system) are situated in the second quadrant and adjacent to the third, suggesting that their relative importance values are relatively low, yet their relative performance values are moderately high. This indicates that investment in either area may be unnecessary or excessive. It is recommended that a reassessment of the resources allocated to these components be conducted to ensure efficient use of resources and prioritization of factors with higher importance values. Strategy for the Third Quadrant (indifference):Components 5 (The method of governance interaction with countries, international institutions, and companies) and 10 (Corruption, conflict of interest, and monopoly) are positioned in the third quadrant, indicating that they have low relative importance values and low relative performance values. This suggests that there is no need to take action on them, as their impact on the governance of cyberspace is minimal. Instead, resources and efforts can be allocated to factors that have higher importance and significance. Strategy for the Fourth Quadrant (improvement and investment priorities):Components 1 (Fundamental theory and model of cyberspace governance), 6 (The method of governance interaction with the private sector), 7 (The method of governance interaction with the public and public institutions), and 8 (The method of governance interaction with academic and research institutions) are situated in the fourth quadrant, indicating their high relative importance and low relative performance values. Given this, it is recommended that these components be prioritized for improvement and investment, as they represent areas where significant improvement is necessary to enhance the overall governance of cyberspace. Upon examining the components in the fourth quadrant, it is notable that Component 8 lies on the border of the four quadrants, indicating a lower priority compared to the other three components in the fourth quadrant. Furthermore, Components 1 and 7 are situated near the first quadrant, suggesting their relative priority is slightly lower than that of Component 6.
