طراحی و اعتباریابی الگوی آسیب‌شناسی فرایند سیاست‌پژوهی در آموزش عالی ایران

نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 علوم تربیتی-دانشکده علوم تربتی و روانشناسی-دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

2 دانشیار، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

چکیده

هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر، طراحی و اعتباریابی الگوی آسیب‌شناسی فرایند سیاست‌پژوهی در نظام آموزش عالی ایران بود. در راستای تحقق این هدف، از روش ترکیبی اکتشافی بهره گرفته شد. فرایند پژوهش حاضر، در طی دو مرحله کیفی و کمی انجام گرفته است. ابتدا، پس از مرور ادبیات، فهرستی از موانع و آسیب‌های فرایند سیاست‌پژوهی، تهیه گردید. سپس در بخش کیفی پژوهش، با انجام مصاحبه‌های عمیق نیمه‌ساختارمند با 15 نفر از سیاست‌گذاران، سیاست‌پژوهان و خبرگان علمی و متعاقباً تحلیل محتوای مصاحبه‌های انجام گرفته، لیستی از عوامل آسیب‌زای فرایند کنونی سیاست‌پژوهی در آموزش عالی ایران، تدوین شد. در ادامه، لیست مذکور با موارد شناسایی شده در ادبیات موضوع، ترکیب گردید و با استفاده از تکنیک دلفی به تایید مشارکت‌کنندگان پژوهش رسید. در نهایت 93 مولفه فرعی در قالب 12 مولفه اصلی و پنج بعد، شناسایی شد. بر اساس یافته‌های بخش کیفی پژوهش، پرسش‌نامه بخش کمی، طراحی و اجرا شد. پایایی پرسش‌نامه مذکور، 889/0 به دست آمد. جامعه آماری پژوهش در بخش کمی، شامل سیاست‌پژوهان آموزش عالی اعم از وابسته و غیر وابسته به وزارت علوم، همچنین سیاست‌گذاران و تصمیم‌گیران آموزش عالی در حوزه ستادی وزارت علوم و خبرگان علمی بوده است که تعداد 203 نفر از آنها پرسش‌نامه پژوهش را تکمیل کردند. برای بررسی سوالات پژوهش از تحلیل عاملی تاییدی استفاده شد. نتایج تحلیل عاملی تاییدی درباره ابعاد پنج‌گانه الگو، بدین شرح بوده است: بعد زمینه‌ای 26 مولفه، بعد ساختاری 11 مولفه، بعد کارکردی (سیاست-گذاران) 23 مولفه، بعد کارکردی (سیاست‌پژوهان) 23 مولفه و بعد ارتباطی 10 مولفه.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing and Validation of Pathology Model of Iranian Higher Education Policy Research Process

نویسندگان [English]

  • jafar amiri farahabadi 1
  • Mahmoud Abolghasemi 2
  • Mohammad Ghahramani 2
1 education, education and psychology faculty
2 Dept., Shahid Beheshti UniversityTehran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
According to many experts and scholars of higher education, nowadays the most important factor of inefficiency of higher education policymaking in Iran is nonconformity of policies and decisions with scientific, theoretical and research basics. Policy research is defined as a research process, focused on providing policy options and referred to the practice of policymakers and can contribute to reasonable and rational policymaking in the field of higher education.
 
Method
the main aim of this research was designing and validation of pathology model of Iranian higher education policy research process. For this purpose mixed exploratory approach was used. Process of this research has been conducted in quantitative and qualitative phases. In qualitative phase through semi-structured interviews with 15 policy makers, policy researchers and scientific experts and subsequently content analysis of interviews, a list of the current damaging factors of policy research process in Iranian higher education was adopted. Then, mentioned list is confirmed by participants through Delphi technique (binomial test). Based on the findings of qualitative phase of research, quantitative questionnaire was designed and conducted. Statistical population of quantitative phase were higher education policy researchers and decision-makers including those affiliated to the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (as institute for social and cultural studies, institute for research and planning in higher education, center for international scientific studies and collaboration and etc.), those not affiliated to the Ministry (as national research institute for science policy, Islamic parliament research center, supreme council of cultural revolution), higher education policy-makers and scientific experts. 203 questionnaires were completed by them. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine research questions.
 
Results
During the present research process, 93 sub-components were identified in the form of 12 main components and 5 dimensions: 26 components for contextual and environmental dimension, 11 components for structural dimension, 23 components for functional dimension (higher education policy makers), 23 components for functional dimension (higher education policy researchers) and 10 components for communicational and interactional dimension.
 
Discussion
In order to reduce the damage of current policy research process of Iranian higher education, some solutions can be considered, including: reforming the system of evaluation and promotion of higher education policy-researchers, need-based establishment of policy-research structures, prioritizing policy-making needs in higher education, more participation of policy-makers in policy research process, Balanced distribution of power between policy-makers and policy-researchers.
nsion.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher education policy research
  • higher education policy making
  • organizational pathology

Abbasi, M., & Shirehpaz Arani, A. (2011). Higher Education Quality Policy Making: Challenges and Prospects. 5th Quality Assurance Conduct in the Academic System. (Persian)

Ahanchian, M. (2011). Analyzing the Disparity Between Science Policies and the Regional Planning of Higher Education in Iran. Journal of Scince & Technology Policy, 5 (1), 73-86. (Persian)

Alvani, M., Pourseyed, B., & Peykani, M.(2008). A Review of Policymaking Models in the Higher Education System. Journal of Majlis & Rahbord, V15, N59, 73-101. (Persian)

Amiri Farahabadi, J., Abilghasemi, M., & Gharamani, M. (2016). pathology of higher education policy research process in Iran. Journal of Interdisciplinary Sudies in Humanities, 8 (4), 139-171. (Persian)

Anderson, E. J. (2014). Public Policymaking: An Introduction. 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Anthes, C. Q. (2007). An Exploratory Study of how Policy Research is Used in the Policy Process by Policymaker Staff and Public Administration (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center).

Birkland, T. A. (2015). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making, 3rd edition, New York: Routledge

Brown, T.; Tseng, M.H.; Casey, J.; McDonald, R. & Lyons, C. (2010). Predictors of Research Utilization Among Pediatric Occupational Therapists. Occupation, Participation and Health, 30(4), 172-183.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39 (3), 124-130.

Danaeifard, H., Saghafi, E., & Moshabaki Esfahani, A. (2011). Public Policy Implementation: Explaining the Role of Rationality in Policy Formulation. The Modares Journal of Management Research in Iran, 14 (4), 79-106. (Persian)

Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (2009). Introducing evidence-based policy and practice in public services. What works, 1-12.

Dukeshire, S., & Thurlow, J. (2002). Understanding the link between research and policy. Rural Communities Impacting Policy Project, 1-18.

Ebrahimi, M. (1395). A critique of the policies of physical and structural development in higher education. National Iranian Higher Education Congress. (Persian)

Farasatkhah M., & Maniee, R. (2015). Effective factors on faculty participation in higher education policy making and university planning. IRPHE. 20 (4), 29-53. (Persian)

Farasatkhah, M. (2013). Critique of the Policy Making in Iran Higher Education, Social critique of higher education, Tehran: Iranian Sociological Association, 1-3. (Persian)

Gholipour, R., & Faghihi, M. (2014). Policy and Public Policy Analysis. Mahkameh Publication, Tehran, Iran. (Persian)

Gholipour, R., & Gholam Ahangar, E. (2010). Public Policy Making Process in Iran. Tehran: Islamic Parliament Research Center Publication. (Persian)

Javdani, H. (2013). Policy Research: The Missing Layer of Decision and Policy Making in Iranian Higher Education. Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education. (Persian)

Javdani, H. (2015). Designing a Model of Policy Research for Iranian Higher Education System. Qurterly Journal of Research and Planing in Higher Education, ISSN 1021-5107, N. 2, 81-86. (Persian)

Javdani, H., Emani, M., Ghaneirad, M., & Daveri, A (2011). Design and Validation of Higher Education Policy Making Model, First Report. (Persian)

Landry, R., Lamari, M., & Amara, N. (2003). The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 192-205.

Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2014). Methods for policy research: Taking socially responsible action (Vol. 3). SAGE publications.

Namdaian, L. (2016). Review and explanation the applicability of research in policy making: a bridge between theory and practice. Journal of Public Policy, 2 (3), 101-117. (Persian)

Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: cross sector lessons from the UK. ESRC UK Centre for evidence basedpolicy and practice: working paper, 9.

Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. (2003). From knowing to doing: a framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9 (2), 125-148.

Pal, L. A. (2010). Beyond policy analysis: Public issue management in turbulent times. Thomson Nelson.

Snellen, I. (2002). Conciliation of rationalities: the essence of public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24 (2), 323-346.

Soare, L., & Student, M. A. (2013). Creating a Linkage Between Academic Research and Policy making. Europolity–Continuity and Change in European Governance-New Series, 7 (2), 89-102.

Taslimi, M., Noruzi, Kh., & Sanaei, M. (2015). Imparted Policies Implementing in National Master Plan for Science and Education Case study: Adjustment the Capacity of Higher Education Institutions (with regard to Geographical Preparation). Journal of Science & Technology, 6 (2), 29-46. (Persian)