Presenting a proposed indigenous knowledge management framework to support policymaking in the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran: A comparative study of European and American parliaments

Abstract

Purpose: Parliaments increasingly operate in policy environments characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and accelerated decision-making cycles. As legislative bodies face growing volumes of specialized information, the ability to systematically manage, translate, and institutionalize policy-relevant knowledge has become a critical determinant of policy quality. Despite the expansion of parliamentary research services and digital infrastructures in many developed countries, evidence suggests that knowledge use in legislative policymaking often remains fragmented, person-dependent, and weakly institutionalized. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of knowledge management arrangements in selected European and American parliaments and to derive empirically grounded lessons for designing an indigenous model of parliamentary knowledge management to support policymaking in the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran.

Design/methodology/approach: This study adopts an applied, analytical–comparative research design based on a multi-case study approach. Drawing on the logic of qualitative comparative analysis, each parliament is treated as an institutional case, while knowledge management practices constitute the unit of analysis. Data collection followed a systematic literature review based on PRISMA guidelines, encompassing peer-reviewed journal articles, institutional reports, and official parliamentary documents retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science databases.

Case selection was guided by purposive theoretical sampling to maximize institutional diversity and explanatory leverage. The cases include parliamentary knowledge-support institutions such as POST (UK), TAB (Germany), STOA (European Parliament), OTA and GAO (USA), OPECST (France), and future-oriented and participatory technology assessment bodies in Nordic and continental European parliaments.

To translate comparative insights into a context-sensitive indigenous model, a second empirical stage was conducted. Based on the analytical lessons extracted from the comparative cases, twelve dimensions of parliamentary knowledge management were identified. A structured questionnaire comprising 48 items (four per dimension) was developed and administered to six experts with professional experience in policymaking and advisory functions within the Iranian Parliament. Content validity was established through expert review, and internal consistency was assessed through item coherence across dimensions.

Data analysis proceeded in two stages. First, qualitative content analysis using a hybrid deductive–inductive coding strategy was applied to identify common themes, differentiating patterns, and explanatory factors across cases. Second, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was employed to calibrate expert-based assessments of the indigenous model dimensions. Calibration thresholds were theoretically defined a priori (full membership ≥ 4.2, crossover point = 3.0, full non-membership < 3.0 on a five-point Likert scale). All analyses were conducted using R software.

Findings: The comparative analysis reveals that while most parliaments have established formal mechanisms for accessing scientific and policy-relevant knowledge, their effectiveness depends less on the mere availability of information and more on institutional configurations governing knowledge use. Across cases, common features include the existence of intermediary knowledge units, reliance on professional non-elected staff, and formalized procedures for producing policy briefs and analytical reports. However, substantial variation emerges in the degree to which knowledge is institutionalized as organizational memory and integrated into the full policymaking cycle.

Three ideal types of parliamentary knowledge management were identified: (1) institutionalized and learning-oriented systems, characterized by stable knowledge units, codified procedures, and feedback mechanisms; (2) supportive but unstable systems, where high-quality knowledge is produced but remains project-based and weakly embedded; and (3) person-centered and fragmented systems, heavily dependent on individual actors and lacking durable institutional memory.

The fsQCA calibration results for the Iranian Parliament indicate a mixed institutional profile. Dimensions such as the institutional position of the knowledge unit, the role of knowledge intermediaries, formal procedures, translation of scientific language, and balancing speed with analytical rigor exhibit partial membership in the set of institutionalized parliamentary knowledge management. In contrast, dimensions related to institutional memory, integration of knowledge across the policy cycle, organizational learning, and avoidance of person-centered practices fall below the crossover point, indicating structural weaknesses. No single dimension appears sufficient on its own; rather, effective knowledge support emerges from specific configurations of institutional, procedural, and human factors.

Research limitations/implications: This study is subject to several limitations. First, the comparative analysis relies on secondary data and documented practices, which may not fully capture informal knowledge dynamics within parliaments. Second, the fsQCA application is based on a single institutional case (the Iranian Parliament) calibrated through expert judgment, which limits generalizability. Future research could extend the model by incorporating additional parliamentary cases or longitudinal data to assess institutional change over time. Despite these limitations, the study demonstrates the analytical value of combining comparative institutional analysis with configurational methods.

Practical implications: The findings offer practical guidance for policymakers and parliamentary administrators seeking to strengthen evidence-informed legislation. They suggest that investments in digital infrastructure or analytical capacity alone are insufficient unless accompanied by stable institutional arrangements, professional knowledge staff, formalized knowledge processes, and mechanisms for organizational learning. For the Iranian Parliament, the proposed indigenous model highlights the need to move beyond ad hoc advisory support toward a system that embeds knowledge management into routine legislative practice.

Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature in three key ways. First, it provides one of the first systematic comparative analyses of parliamentary knowledge management across European and American legislatures. Second, it advances methodological innovation by applying fsQCA to the design and assessment of an indigenous parliamentary knowledge management model. Third, it offers a context-sensitive framework that bridges comparative insights and institutional design, thereby extending existing theories of knowledge use in policymaking beyond linear and evidence-centric approaches.