توسعه یک چارچوب نظاممند برای ارتقای کیفیت رسالهها در رشتههای علوم انسانی | ||
| مدیریت و برنامه ریزی در نظام های آموزشی | ||
| مقاله 12، دوره 18، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 35، مهر 1404، صفحه 319-349 اصل مقاله (988.9 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رضا مهدی* 1؛ فرشته محمدی2؛ احمد کیخا3 | ||
| 1دانشیار گروه مطالعات آیندهنگر، مؤسسه مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2کارشناسی ارشد برنامهریزی درسی،گروه روشها و برنامههای اموزشی و درسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استادیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، کرج، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: در دهههای اخیر، ارتقای کیفیت پژوهشهای تحصیلات تکمیلی، بهویژه رسالههای دکتری، به یکی از دغدغههای اصلی نظامهای آموزش عالی در سراسر جهان تبدیل شده است. در ایران، این موضوع در حوزه علوم انسانی از اهمیت مضاعفی برخوردار است؛ چرا که رسالههای این حوزه باید نقش مؤثری در تحلیل و حل مسائل پیچیده فرهنگی، اجتماعی و انسانی ایفا کنند. با این حال، شواهد موجود حاکی از آن است که رسالههای دکتری علوم انسانی در بسیاری موارد از کارکرد اصلی خود فاصله گرفتهاند و به متونی صرفاً تشریفاتی با کمترین اثرگذاری علمی یا اجتماعی بدل شدهاند. عوامل گوناگونی در بروز این وضعیت مؤثرند، از جمله نبود سیاستگذاریهای حمایتی از پژوهشهای مسئلهمحور، ضعف در نظام ارزیابی علمی رسالهها، تکراری بودن موضوعات تحقیق، عدم انسجام میان اجزای نظری و روشی، و تأثیرپذیری فرایند هدایت پژوهش از ساختارهای غیرعلمی. در چنین شرایطی، نیاز به طراحی یک چارچوب بومی، کاربردی و نظاممند که بتواند بهصورت مرحلهبهمرحله کیفیت رسالهها را بهبود بخشد، ضرورتی انکارناپذیر است. پژوهش حاضر، با بهرهگیری از رویکردهای نهادی، مشارکتی و تجربهمحور، تلاش دارد مدلی تلفیقی و مبتنی بر واقعیت میدانی نظام آموزش عالی ایران برای ارتقای کیفیت رسالههای دکتری علوم انسانی ارائه دهد. پرسش محوری این است: چگونه میتوان با یک مجموعه مداخلات هماهنگ ساختاری، فرهنگی و فرآیندی، رسالههای دکتری علوم انسانی را از حیث علمی و کاربردی ارتقا بخشید؟ مواد و روشها: این مطالعه از نظر هدف، کاربردی و از نظر روش، کیفی است. دادههای پژوهش با استفاده از مصاحبههای گروه کانونی با ۱۶ نفر از صاحبنظران و استادان برجسته حوزه آموزش عالی و علوم انسانی گردآوری شده است. مشارکتکنندگان از دانشگاهها و مراکز پژوهشی معتبر کشور مانند دانشگاههای تهران، شهید بهشتی، علامه طباطبایی، تربیت مدرس و پژوهشگاههای علوم انسانی انتخاب شدهاند. رویکرد نمونهگیری هدفمند با حداکثر پراکندگی برای انتخاب افرادی بهکار رفته است که دارای سابقه تجربی، آموزشی یا مدیریتی در تدوین و ارزیابی رسالههای دکتری باشند. فرآیند جمعآوری دادهها براساس الگوی پنجمرحلهای کروگر و کاسی (2000) برای طراحی و اجرای گروه کانونی برنامهریزی شده و شامل مراحل مقدماتی، طراحی پرسشها، هماهنگی جلسات، اجرای مصاحبهها و تحلیل دادهها بوده است. تحلیل دادهها با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوای عرفی[1] صورت گرفت. در این رویکرد، مضامین اصلی از دل دادهها و بدون پیشفرضهای نظری استخراج شده و بهصورت استقرایی طبقهبندی شدند. دادهها در قالب یک چارچوب مفهومی نهمرحلهای از فرایند کامل رسالهنویسی دستهبندی شدند: شامل انتخاب استاد راهنما، تعیین عنوان، تدوین پروپوزال، مرور ادبیات، طراحی روششناسی، گردآوری و تحلیل داده، تدوین بخش تحلیل و نتیجهگیری، فرآیند دفاع، و بررسی پیامدهای پژوهش. در جریان تحلیل، طبقهای جدید تحت عنوان «ضوابط و مقررات دوره دکتری» نیز براساس تکرار در دادهها شناسایی و به چارچوب اضافه شد. برای اعتباربخشی با یافتههای پژوهش از روش بازبینی توسط همکاران پژوهش استفاده شد. بحث و نتیجهگیری: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که کیفیت رسالههای دکتری در علوم انسانی تابعی از عوامل فردی، ساختاری، نهادی و فرهنگی است. چالشهایی همچون عدم تناسب تخصص استاد راهنما با موضوع رساله، مسئلهمحور نبودن عناوین تحقیق، ضعف در طراحی و تدوین طرحنامه، تکراری بودن پیشینهها، نبود انسجام نظری و روششناختی، تحلیل سطحی دادهها و غفلت از پیامدهای کاربردی پژوهش، از جمله مسائل کلیدی شناساییشده بودند. افزون بر این، مناسک غیرعلمی جلسات دفاع، ارزیابیهای غیرواقعبینانه و ضعف در سازوکارهای حمایتی از رسالههای کاربردی نیز بهعنوان موانع مهم کیفیت مطرح شدند. چارچوب پیشنهادی پژوهش شامل ۹ مرحله کلیدی در فرایند تدوین رساله است: (۱) تعیین استاد راهنما، (۲) انتخاب موضوع پژوهش، (۳) تدوین طرحنامه، (۴) مرور ادبیات، (۵) طراحی روششناسی، (۶) تحلیل دادهها، (۷) نگارش بخش تحلیل و نتیجهگیری، (۸) ارزیابی و داوری رساله، و (۹) بررسی آثار و پیامدهای تحقیق. برای هر مرحله، مجموعهای از اقدامات اصلاحی و مداخلات اجرایی متناسب با بستر آموزش عالی ایران پیشنهاد شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که کیفیت رسالههای دکتری در علوم انسانی تابعی از عوامل فردی، ساختاری، نهادی و فرهنگی است. چالشهایی همچون عدم تناسب تخصص استاد راهنما با موضوع رساله، مسئلهمحور نبودن عناوین تحقیق، ضعف در طراحی و تدوین طرحنامه، تکراری بودن پیشینهها، نبود انسجام نظری و روششناختی، تحلیل سطحی دادهها و غفلت از پیامدهای کاربردی پژوهش، از جمله مسائل کلیدی شناساییشده بودند. افزون بر این، مناسک غیرعلمی جلسات دفاع، ارزیابیهای غیرواقعبینانه و ضعف در سازوکارهای حمایتی از رسالههای کاربردی نیز بهعنوان موانع مهم کیفیت مطرح شدند. چارچوب پیشنهادی پژوهش شامل ۹ مرحله کلیدی در فرایند تدوین رساله است: (۱) تعیین استاد راهنما، (۲) انتخاب موضوع پژوهش، (۳) تدوین طرحنامه، (۴) مرور ادبیات، (۵) طراحی روششناسی، (۶) تحلیل دادهها، (۷) نگارش بخش تحلیل و نتیجهگیری، (۸) ارزیابی و داوری رساله، و (۹) بررسی آثار و پیامدهای تحقیق. برای هر مرحله، مجموعهای از اقدامات اصلاحی و مداخلات اجرایی متناسب با بستر آموزش عالی ایران پیشنهاد شده است. پژوهش حاضر نشان میدهد که ارتقای کیفیت رسالههای دکتری در علوم انسانی، صرفاً از طریق مداخلات آموزشی یا فنی ممکن نیست، بلکه نیازمند بازاندیشی در ساختارهای نهادی، فرهنگی و سیاستی نظام آموزش عالی است. تحقق این هدف، مستلزم تعامل سازنده و مستمر میان دانشجویان، استادان و نهادهای دانشگاهی، و تقویت پژوهشهای مسئلهمحور و میانرشتهای است. چارچوب ارائهشده، الگویی کاربردی و زمینهمند برای بازطراحی برنامههای دکتری، بازبینی نظام ارزیابی رسالهها، و ارتقای کارآمدی سیاستگذاری پژوهشی در ایران فراهم میسازد. اجرای این مدل میتواند به ارتقای شأن علوم انسانی، افزایش اثربخشی اجتماعی پژوهشها، و تقویت پیوند میان دانشگاه و جامعه منجر شود. بر این اساس، پیشنهاد میشود سیاستگذاران آموزشی از این چارچوب بهعنوان نقشه راهی برای اصلاح نظام پژوهش دکتری در علوم انسانی بهرهبرداری کنند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| رساله دکتری؛ علوم انسانی؛ کیفیت پژوهش؛ آموزش عالی؛ چارچوب نظاممند؛ ارزیابی علمی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Developing a Systematic Framework to Enhance the Quality of Doctoral Thesis in the Humanities in Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Reza Mahdi1؛ Fereshteh Mohammadi2؛ Ahmad Keykha3 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Future Studies, Institude for Social and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2MA of Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran. Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Department of Educatinal Administtration, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Kharazmi, Karaj, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective: In recent decades, the enhancement of graduate research quality—particularly doctoral thesis—has become a central concern of higher education systems worldwide. In Iran, this issue takes on added significance in the field of humanities, where dissertations are expected to play a pivotal role in addressing complex cultural, social, and human challenges. However, existing evidence indicates that many doctoral dissertations in the humanities have largely deviated from their original academic and societal purposes, becoming formal requirements with minimal scientific or practical impact. Multiple factors contribute to this decline, including the lack of supportive policies for problem-driven research, weaknesses in dissertation evaluation systems, repetitive and non-innovative topics, methodological-theoretical inconsistencies, and the dominance of non-academic structures in research supervision. In this context, developing a localized, practical, and systematic framework that can guide the step-by-step enhancement of dissertation quality has become an undeniable necessity. This study, grounded in institutional, participatory, and experience-based approaches, seeks to offer an integrative and field-informed model for improving the quality of doctoral dissertations in the humanities within the Iranian higher education system. The central research question is that how a coordinated set of structural, cultural, and procedural interventions elevate the scientific and practical value of doctoral research in the humanities? Materials and Methods: This study is applied in nature and employs a qualitative research design. Data were collected through focus group interviews with 16 leading scholars and experts in higher education and the humanities. Participants were selected using purposive sampling from major academic institutions such as the University of Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University, Allameh Tabataba''i University, Tarbiat Modares University, and the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. The data collection process was structured according to Krueger and Casey’s (2000) five-step model for designing and conducting focus groups, including preparatory planning, question formulation, session coordination, interview execution, and data analysis. Content was analyzed using the conventional content analysis method, where core themes were inductively extracted from the data without predefined theoretical assumptions. These themes were categorized within a nine-stage conceptual framework covering the full dissertation process: supervisor selection, topic formulation, proposal design, literature review, methodological planning, data collection and analysis, interpretation and conclusion, dissertation defense, and post-defense implications. Based on recurring patterns in participant responses, an additional category titled “Doctoral Program Regulations” was identified and integrated into the framework. Discussion and Conclusion: Findings reveal that the quality of doctoral dissertations in the humanities is shaped by a combination of individual, institutional, structural, and cultural variables. Key challenges include the mismatch between advisor expertise and dissertation topics, lack of problem-oriented research, poorly constructed proposals, redundant literature reviews, disconnection between theoretical frameworks and research methods, superficial data analysis, and insufficient attention to research implications. Additionally, ritualistic and unscientific defense procedures, unrealistic evaluations, and the absence of institutional support for applied research were identified as major barriers. The proposed framework encompasses nine critical stages of the dissertation process and recommends context-specific interventions for each stage, such as setting advisor selection criteria, aligning research topics with national priorities, standardizing proposal requirements, strengthening research methods training, fostering analytical rigor, and reforming dissertation evaluation protocols. This study demonstrates that improving the quality of doctoral dissertations in the humanities cannot be achieved through technical or pedagogical reforms alone. Instead, it requires a profound rethinking of institutional structures, cultural norms, and policy frameworks within the higher education system. Sustainable enhancement depends on fostering collaborative engagement among students, faculty, and academic institutions, alongside promoting interdisciplinary and problem-driven research. The proposed framework offers a practical, locally grounded model for redesigning doctoral programs, revising dissertation evaluation systems, and enhancing the efficacy of research policy in Iran. Its implementation may contribute to restoring the dignity of the humanities, increasing the societal relevance of doctoral research, and strengthening the connection between academia and the wider community. It is therefore recommended that policymakers utilize this framework as a strategic roadmap for reforming doctoral research in the humanities. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Doctoral thesis, Humanities, Research Quality, Higher Education, Systematic Framework, Academic Evaluation | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aitken, G., Smith, K., Fawns, T., & Jones, D. (2020). Participatory alignment: a positive relationship between educators and students during online master’s dissertation supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-15. Akhavan Tafti, M., Taheri Ghaletak, F., & Mohsenpour, M. (2019). Evaluating the quality of master degree thesis of Educational Psychology graduates. Research and Planning in Higher Education Quarterly, 25(2), 87–113. [in Persian] Akhmetova, J. B., Kim, A. M., & Harnisch, D. L. (2014). Using Mixed Methods to Study Emotional Intelligence and Teaching Competencies in Higher Education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 516-521. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.198 Aliani, F., Rezayati, M., & Cheraghi, R. (2021). The pathology of folklore literature theses in Iran. Culture and Folk Literature, 8(36), 1–29. [in Persian] Alidousti, S., & Saberi, M. (2008). Information management systems for electronic theses and dissertations. Library and Information Science Quarterly, 11(3), 159–180. [in Persian] Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74, 141. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7408141 Asghari, F., & Nemati, M. A. (2016). The Challenge of the Quality of PhD Thesis in Iran (based on the Concept of Value Chain). Iranian Cultural Research Quarterly, 9(2), 159–191. [in Persian] Atik, G., Yalcin, I. (2010). Counseling Needs of Educational Sciences Students at the Ankara University. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 126-152. Babaee, S., & Samanian, S. (2021). Study of handicrafts theses in Art University based on approved regulations of Art University: Case study of graduate theses from September 2012 to September 2017. Journal of Visual and Applied Arts, 14(31), 33–52. [in Persian] Behimehr, S., Riahinia, N., & Mansourian, Y. (2014). The problems of dissertation writing process, according to Library and information science studentsviewpoint. Academic Librarianship and Information Research, 48(1), 39-59. [in Persian] Bloor, M. (Ed.). (2001). Focus groups in social research. Sage. Campbell, E. (2008). Review of the Literature, The Ethics of Teaching as a Moral Profession. Wiley, Intario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 357- 385. Carlsson, H., Kettis, Å., & Söderholm, A. (2011). Research quality and the role of the university leadership. Expertgruppen för kvalitet. Chetcuti, D., J. Cacciottolo, and N. Vella. (2022). “What Do Examiners Look for in a PhD Thesis? Explicit and Implicit Criteria Used by Examiners across Disciplines.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47 (8): 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048293 Darrudi, A., Darrudi, A., Rashidian, H., & Daroudi, R. (2018). Prioritizing the thesis topic selection criteria using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) from PhD student''s perspective. Journal of Payavard Salamat, 12(1), 62–69. [in Persian] Davoudzadeh, A. (2013). A study on research ethics in graduate theses at Tehran''s technical universities. Master''s thesis, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University. [in Persian] Del Río, M. L., Díaz-Vázquez, R., & Maside Sanfiz, J. M. (2018). Satisfaction with the supervision of undergraduate dissertations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 159-172. East, M., Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2012). What Constitutes Effective Feedback to Postgraduate Research Students? The Students’ Perspective. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 9(2), 8-31. Ehsani, V., Azami, M., Najafi, S. M. B., & Soheili, F. (2016). The effectiveness of domestic Scientific research on Iran development Indicators. Information Processing and Management Research Quarterly, 32(2). [in Persian] Fath-Abadi, J. (2010). A review of one decade of published articles (2000–2009). Quarterly Journal of Psychology and Education, 3. [in Persian] Gao, Z.; A.M. Lee & L. Harrison (2008). “Understanding Students'' Motivation in Sport and Physical Education: From the Expectancy-Value Model and Self- Efficacy Theory Perspectives”. Quest Journal, 60 (2): 236-54. DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2008.10483579 Gaunand, A., A. Hocdé, S. Lemarié, M. Matt, and E. Turckheim. (2015). How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns. Research Policy 44 (4): 849-861. Ghorbankhani, M., & Salehi, K. (2021). A phenomenological approach to the study of obstacles of creation of knowledge in humanities based on the perception and lived experience of the university elites and scholars. Strategy for Culture, 13(52), 75-110. [in Persian] Golding, C., S. Sharmini, and A. Lazarovitch. (2014). “What Examiners Do: What Thesis Students Should Know.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (5): 563–576.. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.859230 Golkar, K., Lak, A., & Hakimian, P. (2024). The selection of master’s thesis in the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning: A grounded theory study emanated from supervisors’ experiences. Soffeh, 34(106), 77–112. [in Persian] Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2001). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Sage Publications. Hajikarim, B., Mokhtari, S., Vakili, M. M., & Mazloumzadeh, S. (2016). An Assessment of Medical Students'' Thesis Writing Methods and Application of Results in Zanjan University of Medical Sciences from 2007 to 2011. Journal of Medical Education Development, 9(21), 26–36. [in Persian] Holbrook, A., S. Bourke, and H. Fairbairn. (2015). “Examiner Reference to Theory in PhD Theses.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52 (1): 75–85. Hoseinpanah, A., & Shirzad, M. (2014). A survey on research methods of master''s dissertations in the field of the Knowledge and Information Science in Tehran state universities from 2006 to 2012. Journal of Knowledge Studies, 7(26), 29–40. [in Persian] Hosseinalian, S., & Ibnorrasool, S. M. R. (2013). Pathology of Theses in the Department of Arabic Language and Literature in University of Isfahan in its Half a Century Activities (A Descriptive – Analytical Study). Biannual Journal of Arabic Language Studies, 8, 43–66. [in Persian] Hounsell, D. (2007). Contrastting conception of essay-writing. The experience of learning. Sottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 106-125. Imanpour, M. T., & Nazeri, M. R. (2016). The pathological review of selecting topics in historical research: The case of historical theses. Journal of Historical Perspective & Historiography, 26(17), 5–32. [in Persian] Iranian Parliament Research Center. (2023). Oversight report on the law to prevent and combat academic fraud: Performance of major higher education institutions. Tehran: Iranian Parliament Research Center. [in Persian] Keykha, A. (2020). An Analysis of the Structural and Functional Damage of Iranian Higher Education from the Viewpoints of Academicians. Journal of Marine Science Education, 7(4), 42–63. [in Persian] Keykha, A., & Ezati, M. (2021). Identifying factors hindering ecosystem development, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial university. Journal of Innovation Management, 10(2), 55–84. [in Persian] Keykha, A., & Towfighi, J. (2021). Redefining the role of faculty members in higher education policy: a qualitative study using thematic analysis. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 7(3), 55-76. [in Persian] Keykha, A., Ezati, M., & Khodayari, Z. (2022). Identification of the barriers and factors affecting the quality of higher education in Allameh Tabataba’i university from the viewpoints of faculty members. Quality in Higher Education, 28(3), 326-344. Keykha, A., Ezati, M., & Salehi, M. J. (2019). Entrepreneur university model design: Qualitative approach (Case study: University of Tehran). Iranian. Journal of Engineering Education, 21(83), 51–77. [in Persian] Khademi, A., Tavangar, A., & Hoseinpour, K. (2011). Quality of dissertations of Isfahan Faculty of Dentistry during 2005-2009. Isfahan Dental School Journal, 785. [in Persian] Khandizaji, A. H. (2011). A critical study of sociology''s theses in Iran. Strategy for Culture, 4(14), 115–130. [in Persian] Khosronejad, M., & Atashi, L. (2019). Pathology of the theses conducted by Iranian students majoring in children’s literature: A critical examination of the flaws and shortcomings. Iranian Children’s Literature Studies, 10(1), 23–56. [in Persian] Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage, Newbury Park Lastrucci, C. L. (1963). The scientific approach: Basic principles of the scientific method. Leahey, E., & Barringer, S. N. (2020). Universities’ commitment to interdisciplinary research: To what end?. Research Policy, 49 (2), 103910. Löfström, E., Tikkanen, L., Anttila, H., & Pyhältö, K. (2024). Supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision in times of change. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 15(1), 34–48. Mahdi, R., Keykha, A., & Barouji, P. R. (2023). Identifying the challenges of the regulations for the promotion of faculty members in Universities of Medical Sciences: A meta synthesis of existing studies. Future of Medical Education Journal, 13(3). Manathunga, C. (2012). Supervisors Watching Supervisors. Victoria University, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand, 54(1), 29-37. Meisami, H., Shabani, A., & Haqiqi, M. H. (2013). The obstacles in the way of preparing thesis in the field of Islamic economics and banking. Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences, 13(27), 135–155. [in Persian] Mhunpiew, N. (2013). A Supervisor’s Roles for Successful Thesis and Dissertation. US-China Education Review , 3(2), 119-122. Mirnezami, S. R., Maleki, A., & Keykha, A. (2024). Comparative Comparison of Research and Technology Funding Systems. Science Cultivation, 15(1), 67-76. [in Persian] Mohammadi, E. (2014). Content analysis of graduate theses in social work. Social Work Research Journal, 1(1), 137–172. [in Persian] Mohammadi, S., Mohammadian Sharif, K., & Salimi, J. (2023). A narration of dissertation defense sessions: An ethnographic research. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 29(2), 133–152. [in Persian] Mohammadzadeh, Z., Mortezavi, S., & Lagzian, M. (2015). Typology of implicit followership theories using conventional content analysis. Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 9(36), 25–52. [in Persian] Molavi, Z., & Rezaii, M. M. (2023). Academic corruption: A look at the factors affecting the outsourcing of thesis among management students: A phenomenology research. Iranian Journal of Management in the Islamic University, 11(24), 419–446. [in Persian] Morgan, D. L. (1997). Planning and research design for focus groups. Focus groups as qualitative research, 16. Motahari, M., Sarsangi, M., & Mohandes Pour, F. (2015). The evaluation of sacred defence theatre thesis (with an emphasis on judging criteria for scientific journals). Iranian Journal of the Knowledge Studies in the Islamic University, 19(62), 23–40. [in Persian] Nedirkhanlou, S. (2024). Challenges of the right to use theses and dissertations in Iranian public universities. Monthly Expert Reports, Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Tehran, Iran. [in Persian] Negahban, Z., Javidi, T., & Ahanchiyan, M. (2016). The factors affecting the selection of a subject matter for the theses of postgraduate students in Firdausi University Mashhad. Journal of Research in Islamic Sciences, 5(2), 111–130. [in Persian] Norouzi, A., Abolghasemi, M., & Ghahremani, M. (2015). Exploring Barriers to Science Production from the Viewpoint of Shahid Beheshti University Faculty Members. Bimonthly Journal of New Approaches in Educational Management, 6(22), 77–108. [in Persian] Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2020). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge. Pasha Sharifi, H., & Sharifi, N. (2004). Research methods in behavioral sciences. Tehran: Sokhan Publications. [in Persian] Pashakhanlou, S., Kiamanesh, A., & Mosapour, N. (2012). Evaluating the Quality M.A. Theses for the Fields of Psychology and Education at University Tarbiate Moallem 2004- 2008. Curriculum Studies in Higher Education, 5, 91–112. [in Persian] Powell, S., & Green, H. (2007). The Doctorate Worldwide. The Society for Research into Higher Education, SRHE and Open University Press Imprint, 1-16. Rahmani, J. (2022). The mirage of theses defense sessions A reflection on Iran''s academic culture through defense meetings. Sociological Studies, 29(2), 149–162. [in Persian] Ramlall, S., V. S. Singaram, and T. E. Sommerville. (2020). “Doctorates by Thesis and Publication in Clinical Medicine: An Analysis of Examiners’ Reports.” Perspectives in Education, 37 (1): 130–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v37i1.10 Rasuli, B., & Shahriari, P. (2021). Barriers to Research in the Humanities in Iran: a window to Science Policy. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 37(2), 333-361. [in Persian] Ray, S. (2007). Selecting a Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor: Analytical Hierarchy Approach to the Multiple Criteria Problem. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 23-32. Saeedi, Y., Arasteh, H. R., & Zeynabadi, H. R. (2016). Characteristics of a good thesis supervisor from the viewpoint of graduate students: A qualitative study. Curriculum Studies in Higher Education, 7(13). [in Persian] Saif Naraghi, M., & Naderi, E. (2021). Research methods and their evaluation in the humanities. Tehran: Arasbaran. [in Persian] Salimi, G., & Hoseini, N. (2017). An Explanation of Research Excellence Framework (REF): a Step towards Providing a Model for Research Quality Assessment System in Nation’s Higher Education. Quarterly Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 27(65), 83–97. [in Persian] Sawtelle, V.; E. Brewe & L.H. Kramer (2011). Sequential Logistic Regression: A Method to Reveal Subtlety in Self-Efficacy. COERC, 216-218. Sharifzadeh, R. (2023). Research Supervision Ethics; Identifying the Ethical Challenges of Dissertations/Theses Supervision in Iran and Providing Code of Ethics. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 38(3), 715-744. [in Persian] Shen, L. (2020). PhD thesis discussion writing in two disciplines: Learner needs and generic characteristics. University of Auckland. Taghvaei Yazdi, M. (2021). A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of master''s theses in education of Mazandaran province. Journal of Transcendental Education, 1(2), 1–16. [in Persian] Talebi, F., Jahed, H. A., & Sarikhani, N. (2021). Components and indicators of improving the quality of research in the Iranian higher education system. Public Policy in Management Quarterly, 12(41), 147–163. [in Persian] Teo, T.; Ling Hwee & J. Koh (2010). “Assessing the Dimensionality of Computer Self-Efficacy among Pre-Service Teachers in Singapore: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach”. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6 (3): 7-18. Varij Kazemi, A., & Asghri, Z. (2023). A look at phenomenon of dissertation ghost writing in Iran: Policies and the condition of possibility. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 25(4), 1-22. [in Persian] Vilkinas, T. (2008). An Exploratory Study of the Supervision of Ph.D/ Research Students’ Theses. In Innov High Edu, 32, 297-311. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10755-007-9057-5 Yamani Douzi Sarkhabi, M. (2012). Quality in higher education. Tehran: SAMT. [in Persian] Yasini, A., Norouzi Kuhdasht, R., & Tabban, M. (2017). Pathology of academic research using anatomical mixed method (the case of literature and humanities, and theology fields). Iranian Journal of the Knowledge Studies in the Islamic University, 21(71), 231–250. [in Persian] Zandi, T., Mahdavi Nasab, Y., Fardanesh, H., & Ahmadi, R. (2016). Analysis of methodological and executive context of master''s dissertations of instructional technology field. Technology of Education Journal, 10(3), 193–205. [in Persian] Zarei, A., Javadipour, M., & Salehi, K. (2018). Representing the problems of the thesis and dissertation process: A qualitative study. Research on Educational Leadership and Management, 5(17), 25-57. [in Persian] Zarshenas, L., Shaghaghian, S., Momeni Danaei, S., & Tabatabaei, S. H. R. (2012). The methodological evaluation of general dentistry student’s theses in Shiraz Dentistry School (2006–2008). Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 12(3), 202–209. [in Persian] Zeynabadi, H. R., Moradi Barzelabad, R., Yassini, A., & Taban, M. (2016). Research environment, supervisor-student interaction, research self-efficacy: Presenting a model. Islamic University Management Journal, 5(2). [in Persian] Zolqadr, S., & Mohammadi, M. (2022). Survey on the Obstacles of Thesis Writing for the Postgraduate Students Case Study: Postgraduate Students of Zanjan University. Digital and Smart Libraries Researches, 9(1), 53-70. [in Persian]
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 114 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 151 |
||