طراحی الگوی حکمرانی دانشگاه نسل سوم با رویکرد مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری جامع | ||
| مدیریت و برنامه ریزی در نظام های آموزشی | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 14، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 26، 1400، صفحه 213-254 اصل مقاله (1.59 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.52547/MPES.14.1.213 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سید مسلم علوی1؛ حبیب اله رعنایی کردشولی* 2؛ مسلم علیمحمدلو2؛ قاسم سلیمی3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت سیستم، بخش مدیریت، دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه شیراز، فارس، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار بخش مدیریت، دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه شیراز، فارس، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار، مدیریت آموزش عالی، بخش برنامهریزی و مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، فارس، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: نظام آموزش عالی در هزاره جدید ضمن رویارویی با انتظارات روزافزون و متنوعتر گروههای مختلف ذینفع، با کاهش حمایتهای مالی دولتی و تأکید مضاعف دولتها بر ثروتآفرینی، توانمندسازی، تمرکززدایی و افزایش دامنه خلاقیت و کارآفرینی در فضای دانشگاهها، روبروست. این الزامات دانشگاهها را به سمت دانشگاههای نسل سوم سوق داده است و به تبع آن، شیوه حکمرانی آنها را نیز تحت تأثیر قرار خواهد داد. با توجه به این نکات و از طرفی بدلیل تأکید برنامههای توسعه پنجم و ششم دولت و تصمیم آن بر تغییر ماهیت و شیوه هدایت دانشگاهها و حرکت آنها به سمت دانشگاههای نسل سوم، هدف از انجام این پژوهش، طراحی الگوی حکمرانی این دانشگاهها و تبیین روابط میان ابعاد آن است. مواد و روشها: پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف، پژوهشی توسعهای، کاربردی است. استراتژیهای پژوهش شامل فراترکیب و مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری جامع میباشد. جامعه آماری در بخش فراترکیب، شامل مطالعات مربوط به حکمرانی دانشگاهی در قالب مقالات، کتب و گزارشات و در بخش مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری جامع، شامل گروهی از خبرگان حوزه حکمرانی دانشگاهی در دانشگاه شیراز از گروه اساتید مدیریت و مدیریت آموزش عالی میگردد. در فرایند اجرای پژوهش، ضمن شناسایی ابعاد و شاخصهای الگوی حکمرانی دانشگاه نسل سوم از طریق روش فراترکیب، این ابعاد از نظر درجه تأثیرگذاری بر یکدیگر نیز با توجه به رویکرد مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری جامع سطحبندی میشوند. بحث و نتیجهگیری: یافتههای این پژوهش نشان میدهد که مولفههای حکمرانی دانشگاهی در قالب 27 شاخص و 6 بعد قابل دستهبندی هستند. این ابعاد و شاخصها شامل استقلال دانشگاهی (شاخص استقلال آموزشی، پژوهش، فناوری، استقلال مالی و استقلال اداری دانشگاه)، مشارکت ذینفعان (مشارکت ذینفعان مختلف)، پاسخگویی (پاسخگویی حرفهای، قانونی، سلسله مراتبی و اجتماعی)، نظارت، ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت (نظارت، ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت عملکرد دانشگاه)، شفافیت (کیفیت اطلاعات شفاف شده، دامنه شفافیت و ابزارهای شفافیت) و مدیریت ریسک (مالی، اداری/سازمانی، محیطی، عملیاتی و اعتباری) میباشند. از طرفی یافتهها نشان داد که مشارکت ذینفعان و در عین حال دامنه شفافیت و اطلاعات شفاف بیشترین تأثیر را از سایر ابعاد موجود در الگوی حکمرانی میپذیرند و شاخصهای استقلال دانشگاهی در اولین سطح از تأثیرگذاری بر سایر ابعاد الگوی حکمرانی قرار دارند. نکته دیگر آنکه در بخش روابط غیرمستقیم، استقلال آموزشی، پژوهشی و فناورانه میتواند با کمک به فرایند جاریسازی فرایند مدیریت ریسک بر فرایند نظارت، ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت عملکرد دانشگاه مؤثر باشد. در ادامه نیز مشخص گردید که شاخصهای نظارت، ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت میتوانند با افزایش سطح پاسخگویی بر دامنه شفافیت و کیفیت اطلاعات قابل دسترس ذینفعان تأثیرگذار باشند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| الگوی حکمرانی دانشگاه نسل سوم؛ حکمرانی دانشگاهی؛ دانشگاه نسل سوم | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Designing a Third Generation University Governance Model Using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Seyyed Moslem Alavi1؛ Habib Allah Ranaei Kordshouli2؛ Moslem Alimohammadlou2؛ Ghasem Salimi3 | ||
| 1Ph.D Student in System Management, Department of Management, Faculty of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Fars, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Fars, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Higher Education Management, Department of Educational Administration & Planning, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University, Fars, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objectives: The higher education system challenges in the new millennium are twofold. On the one hand, it has faced the growing and diverse expectations of various stakeholders, and on the other hand, it is confronting a reduction in government financial support and a double emphasis on wealth creation, empowerment, decentralization and increasing the scope of creativity and entrepreneurship in universities. These requirements have shifted universities towards third-generation universities and, consequently, will affect the way they would be governed. Regarding to these points and due to the emphasis of the fifth and sixth development plans of the iranian government in which the nature and method of leading universities is doubted, there is an increasing need to move towards the third-generation universities and therefore, the purpose of this study is to design a governance model for these universities and explain the relationship between Its dimensions. Methods and Materials: This applied and developmental research has utilized two strategies: meta-synthesis and total interpretive structural modeling (TISM). The statistical population in the meta-synthesis approach consists of the studies conducted on university governance in the form of articles, books, and reports. In TISM, it encompassed a group of experts (professors of higher education management) in the field of university governance at Shiraz University. Through this research project, while we identify the dimensions of the governance model of the third-generation university using the meta-synthesis method, these dimensions will be leveled according to the TISM approach in terms of the degree of influence on each other. Discussion and Conclusion: The findings reveal that all the concepts identified in the university governance model can be categorized into 27 indicators and 6 dimensions. These dimensions and indicators include academic independence (educational independence index: research, technology, financial and administrative), stakeholder participation (participation of various stakeholders), accountability (professional, legal, hierarchical, and social accountability), monitoring, Evaluation and Quality Assurance (Monitoring, Evaluation and Quality Assurance of University Performance), Transparency (Information Quality, Scope and Tools) and Risk Management (Financial, Administrative / Organizational, Environmental, Operational and reputational). On the other hand, the findings showed that the participation of stakeholders and, at the same time the scope of transparency and transparent information are under the greatest impact of other dimensions of governance model and the university independence indicators are at the first level of impact on other dimensions of governance model. Another point is that, the educational, research and technological independence can be effective on the process of monitoring, evaluating and assuring the quality of university performance through the process of risk management. It was further determined that the indicators of quality monitoring, Evaluation and Quality assurance can be effective on the scope of transparency and quality of information available to stakeholders by increasing the level of accountability. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Third Generation University, University Governance, University Governance of Third Generation University | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abbaspour, A., Shakerihoseinabad, M., Rahimian, H., & Farasatkhah, M. (2016). Qualitative study on accountability strategies of public universities from the viewpoint of higher education experts. Research on Educational Leadership and Management, 1(3), 1-27. Abbaspour, A., Shakerihoseinabad, M., Rahimian, H., Farasatkhah, M. (2019). A Model for Effective Accountability at Public Universities: Mixed Method. Journal of Resaerch in Educational Syestems, 13(44), 7-22. Ahmadi Rezaei, H., Edjtehadi, M., Gourchian, N., & MohammadDavoudi, A. (2017). The Evaluation of University Good Governance by Autonomy and Accountability. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 8(29), 179-202 (In Persian). Alas, R., Elenurm, T., & Tafel-Viia, K. (2010). Who is Driving Change? Corporate Governance and Organizational Change in Estonia. Journal of Baltic Studies, 41(1), 23-43. Amiri farahabadi, J., Abolghasmi, M., & Soleymani, S. (2018), The Study of the Convergence of University Governance and Quasi-Market Actions in Iran's Higher Education. Journal of Iranian Higher Education, 10(4), 61-86. Amouri, A. (2017). Assesing of good governance model in Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz. Master Thesis, Department of Educational Sciences (Management and Educational Planning), Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz (In Persian). Arikewuyo, M. O., & Ilusanya, G. (2010). University Autonomy in a Third-Generation University in Nigeria. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(2), 81–98. Brewer, A., & Walker, I. (2011). Risk management in a university environment. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 5(2), 161-172. Carnegie, G. D. (2009). The ABC of University Governance. Campus Review, 19(9), 8-14. Costandi, S., Hamdan, A., Alareeni, B., & Hassan, A. (2018). Educational governance and challenges to universities in the Arabian Gulf region. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 1-17. Creswell, C. D. (2018). Research plan: qualitative, quantitative and hybrid approaches. Translator: Alireza Kiamanesh, Tehran: University Jihad Publishing (In Persian). Crow, M. M., Whitman, K., & Anderson, D. M. (2020). Rethinking Academic Entrepreneurship: University Governance and the Emergence of the Academic Enterprise. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 511-515. Dadash Karimi, Y., Mirsepassi, N., & Najafbeigi, R. (2019). Designing a Model for the Higher Education Governance. Quarterly Journal of Public Organzations Management, 7(3), 11-28. (In Persian). De Boer, H., Huisman, J., & Meister‐Scheytt, C. (2010). Supervision in ‘modern’ university governance: boards under scrutiny. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 317-333. De Boer, H., & Maassen, P. (2020). University governance and leadership in Continental Northwestern Europe. Studies in Higher Education, 45(10), 2045-2053. Dezfuli, M. (2016). Universities account for less than one percent of GDP. News ID: 97082713159, November 18, 2016, https://www.isna.ir/news/97082713159 (In Persian). Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2017). Higher education governance in France, Germany, and Italy: Change and variation in the impact of transnational soft governance. Policy and Society, 36(1), 67-88. Edwards, M. (2004). University governance: a mapping and some issues, paper given to Life Long Learning Network National Conference, December, http:/governance.canberra.edu.au/welcome.html. EUA (2019). Efficiency, Effectiveness and Value for Money at Universities: a USTREAM Report. European University Association. Huber, M. (2011). The risk university: Risk identification at higher education institutions in England. CARR Discussion Papers (DP 69). Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Iman, M. T. (2017). Philosophy of Research Methods in the Humanities. Tehran: Hozeh and University Research Institute Publications (In Persian). Jalali, M., & Ghanbari, K. (2020). Explaining the desirable criteria of academic independence and its effects on higher education in Iran from a legal perspective. Journal of Management and Planning in Educational System, 13(1), 263-282. Jaramillo, A., Moreno, J. M., Demenet, A., Zaafrane, H., Monet, O., Trenner, S., Taha, T., Barry, J., Kwak, A., & Marchionne, S. (2012). Universities through the Looking Glass: Benchmarking University Governance to Enable Tertiary Education Modernization in MENA, Washington DC: World Bank Publication. Jarernsiripornkul, S., & Pandey, I. M. (2018). Governance of autonomous universities: case of Thailand. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 15(3), 288-305. Kennedy, K. J. (2003). Higher Education Governance as a Key Policy Issue in the 21st Century. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 55–70. Kim, T. (2008). Changing university governance and management in the UK and elsewhere under market conditions: Issues of quality assurance and accountability. Intellectual Economics, 2(4), 33-42. Loukkola, T., & Zhang, T. (2010). Examining Quality Culture: Part 1 – Quality Assurance Processes in Higher Education Institutions, European University Association. Magalhaes, A., & Amaral, A. (2009). Mapping Out Discourses on Higher Education Governance. In: Jeroen, H. (Ed.), International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education: Alternative Frameworks for Coordination. NY: Routledge, pp. 182–197. Maximova, O., Belyaev, B., Laukart-Gorbachevaa, O., Nagmatullinaa, L., & Hamzinaa, G. (2016). Russian Education in the Context of the Third Generation Universities` Discourse: Employers’ Evaluation. International journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(16), 9101-9112. Milani, O., Hasani, M., & Ghasemzadeh, A. (2016). The autonomy of university and its role in accountability and quality assurance of higher education system services. Research on Educational Leadership and Management, 2(7), 147-167. Mozaffari, G. (2011). Designing and validating the university's accountability model to stakeholders. Submitted for fulfilling the doctorate degree in higher education management, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University (In Persian). Nematallahi, Z., Ranaei Kordshouli, H., Ali Mohammad Lou, M., & Salimi, Q. (2019). A systematic review of the capabilities of the third-generation university. Journal of Teaching and Learning Studies, 11(1), 183-217. O’Meara, K. (2007). Striving for What? Exploring the Pursuit of Prestige. In: Smart, J. C. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume XXII. Springer, pp. 121–180. Olsen, J. P. (2007). The Institutional Dynamics of the European University. In: Johan Olsen, P., Peter, M. (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 25–54. Pardakhtchi, M. H., Bazargan, A., Arasteh, H., & Mozafari, G. (2012). Academic Society's Perceptions on University External Accountability Gap. IRPHE, 18(1), 91-112 (In Persian). Parker, L. (2002). It’s Been a Pleasure Doing Business with You: A Strategic Analysis and Critique of University Change Management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5-6), 603–619. Quyên, D. T. N. (2014). Developing university governance indicators and their weighting system using a modified Delphi method Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 828-833. Ramírez, Y., & Tejada, A. (2018). Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency and accountability. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 15(1), 29-39. Ronaghi, M., Mahmoudi, J., Abolghasemi, A. (2015). Measuring the Maturity of University Governance. Strategic Management Thought, 9(2), 135-156 (In Persian). Sabandar, S. Y., Tawe, A., & Musa, C. I. (2018). The Implementation of Good University Governance in the Private Universities in Makassar (Indonesia), Spacios, 39(2), 1-13. SABER (2012). Systems Approach for Better Education Results, SABER – Tertiary Education Governance: A Background Paper for the SABER Tertiary Education Domain Data Collection and Assessment Tool on Governance in Tertiary Education, World Bank. Salimi, J., Ghasemi, M., & Abdi, A. (2019). Emerging Challenges in Iranian Higher Education and Presenting a Conceptual Model; the study of grounded theory. Journal of Management and Planning in Educational System, 12(2), 127-156. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company. Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Voils, C. I. (2007). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(1), 99-111. Sari, M., Qorib, M., Harahap, S. H., & Jufrizen (2018). Good Governance in Private University in Medan City. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 7(4), 21-29. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students, fifth edition. NY: Pearson Education Limited. Sedlacek, J. (2017). The Impact of Governance on the Research Performance of European Universities in Cross-Country Comparisons. Revies of economic perspectives, 17(4), 337–362. Shattock, M. (2006). Managing good governance in higher education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Soin, K., Huber, C., & Wheatley, S. (2014) Management Control and Uncertainty: Risk Management in Universities. In: Otley D., Soin K. (eds) Management Control and Uncertainty. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Sushil, T. (2012). Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106. Trakman, L. (2008). Modeling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1-2), 63-83. Tricker, R. B. (2015). Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies, and Practices (3rd Edition), Oxford University Press. Van Dao K., & Hayden, M. (2019). Vietnam’s Progress with Policies on University Governance, Management and Quality Assurance. In: Nguyen N., Tran L. (eds) Reforming Vietnamese Higher Education. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 50. Springer, Singapore Westerheijden, D. F. (2018). University Governance in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Japan: Correlates of varieties of NPM and academics’ power in universities. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 18, 199-220. Yakubu, N. R., Laar, S., & Ansoglenang, G. (2019). A Governance Approach to the Management of Quality Assurance in the University for Development Studies, Ghana. Journal of Research in Higher Education, 3(1), 61-86. Yudianti, F. N. (2015). Internal Control and Risk Management in Ensuring Good University Governance. Journal of Education and Vocational Research, 6(2), 6-12. Zaker Salehi, Gh. (2013). Study of the legal capacities of academic independence in Iran. Iranian Higher Education, 5 (4), 23-55 (In Persian). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 7,555 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 4,243 |
||