Meta-Synthesis Method for the Model of Evaluating the Effects and Consequences of Macro Policies and Strategies: A Case Study of Academic Communities

Document Type : Research Article (with qualitative approaches)

Authors
babak khosravi 1
hussein eisaaei 2
mohsen miry 3
ali tahery 3
1 PhD Candidate Management Systems Management Faculty of Management and Economics Imam Hossein University Tehran Iran
2 Department of System Management / Faculty of Management and Economics / Imam Hussein University / Tehran / Iran
3 Department of System Management / Faculty of Management and Economics / Imam Hossein University / Tehran / Iran
10.52547/jpap.2022.226973.1182
Abstract
Purpose: Due to the existing shortcomings, the organizational policy-making system needs a systematic, purposeful and regular process to produce performance data, process them into information and turn them into policy knowledge in order to achieve the goals of policies, effects and consequences. Be aware of them and their successes or failures and use them for policy-making and decision-making. Therefore, the main issue that the researcher tries to solve is to explain what the consequences of policies and strategies will be.
Design/Methodology/Approach: In terms of practical purpose and in terms of data collection method the current research is documentary- Meta-Synthesis. In the process of this research, 408 studies were selected in which the components of evaluating policies and strategies related to academic societies were discussed directly and indirectly. A qualitative approach was used to analyze the data. To check the validity of the studies used in this research, "Glynn's Vital Tool" has been used, which can be used to evaluate all applied research projects.
Findings: In the present study, 4 dimensions, 16 components and 93 indicators have been identified, and finally, the model for evaluating the effects and consequences of policies and strategies of academic communities has been developed based on them. The dimensions of the extraction model are: training and education, research and innovation, consulting services and knowledge management.
Limitations and Consequences: The only limitation in this study is the lack of a coherent model for evaluating the consequences of policies and strategies in the academic community. Therefore, this research is the first one to provide a coherent model for evaluating the consequences of policies and strategies in academic communities.
Practical Implications: Using the indicators in the present model, the main consequences of the policies set in the academic community can be assessed and according to the results, useful information can be provided to decision makers in this field to avoid wasting resources and time by adopting policies and strategies.
Initiative or practical value: This research is the first one to provide a coherent model in assessing the impact of policies and strategies of academic communities.
Paper Type: Research Paper
Keywords
Evaluation
Impact evaluation/assessment
Outcome evaluation/assessment
Policy and Strategy evaluation/assessment
Strategy evaluation/assessment
University
  1. Abramovsky, L., Simpson, H. (2011). Geographic proximity and firm–university innovation linkages: evidence from Great Britain. Journal of Economic Geography, 11, 949–977.
  2. Aktharsha, U. S., Anisa, H. (2011). Knowledge management and learning organization: An empirical study in an engineering organization. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(5);26-40.
  3. Al-Khalifa, H., Garcia, R. (2013). The State of Social Media in Saudi Arabia’s Higher Education. International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing. 3. 65-76.
  4. Alwani, M., Hashemian, M. H., Bahmani, M. R. (2009) Implementation and evaluation of policies in government organizations using the balanced management model of policies (bsc) Case study: Islamic Propaganda Office. Strategic management thought journal, 3 (1), 5-34. (in Persian).
  5. Alwani, M., Fattah Sharifzadeh (2011) The process of public calligraphy (eighth edition). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press. (in Persian).
  6. Al-Yasin, A. (2013) 7 decades of development planning in Iran; Iranian Society of Consulting Engineers Quarterly (Consulting Engineer); 59 (2), 4-25. (in Persian).
  7. Anantatmula, V,S. (2005) Outcomes of Knowledge Management Initiatives., International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3) pp. 50-67.
  8. Arnold, I. J. M. 2015. “The Effectiveness of Academic Dismissal Policies in Dutch University Education: An Empirical Investigation.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (6): 1068–1084.
  9. Bagheri, Muslim, Ebrahimi, Abolghasem, Kiani, Mehrdad (2016), Designing a model for identifying outsourced activities in universities (Case study: Shiraz University), Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 7 (3) 123-143. (in Persian).
  10. Blanden, Jo., Machin, S. J. (2013) Educational Inequality and the Expansion of UK Higher Education. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 60, Issue 5, pp. 578-596.
  11. Bustamante, P,G. (1999). Knowledge management in agile innovative organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 6–17.
  12. DBIS (Department for Business Innovation & Skills) (2015) Better Regulation Framework Manual – Practical Guidance for UK Government Officials. March 2015. Dunn, Willaim N. 1994-2007. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
  13. Duque, Lola C. Weeks, John R., (2010), Towards a model and methodology for assessing student learning outcomes and satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 84 - 105
  14. EC (European Commission) (2015): Better Regulation Guidelines. Commission Working Document. May 2015.
  15. Emami Meybodi, Razia; Ashtarian, Kiomers; (2012) Designing a public policy evaluation system for the Islamic Republic of Iran; PhD Thesis; University of Tehran; Tehran. (in Persian).
  16. Etesami, Seyed Mohammad Kazem, Miri, Mohsen, Eissaei, Hossein, Fateh Rad, Mehdi, (1399) Narrative of research on the problem of faculty (case study: one of the organizational universities), Human Resources Management Research, Twelfth Year, 2 (40), 101-145. (in Persian).
  17. Garbarino, S,. Holland, J. (2009) Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Impact Evaluation and Measuring Results. Discussion Paper. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  18. Giunta, LD, Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Kanacri, PL, Zuffiano, A., & Caprata, GV (2013). The determinants of scholastic achievement: The contribution of personality traits, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 102-108.
  19. Habibpour, Karam, Safari, Reza, (2009) Comprehensive guide to the use of SPSS in survey research (quantitative data analysis), sixth edition, Loya Publishing, Thinkers,Iran, Tehran. (in Persian).
  20. Hall, B.H., & Mairesse, J. (2006). Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledgedriven economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15(4),280-296.
  21. Henkel, J., Schoberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). How and why firms adopt selectiverevealing in open innovation. Res. Policy, 43 (5), 879–890.
  22. Hsu, M. H., & Chang, C. M. (2014). Examining interpersonal trust as a facilitator and uncertainty as an inhibitor of intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal, 24(2), 119-142.
  23. Kafouros M., Buckley, P.J., Clegg, L.J., 2012. The effects of global knowledge reservoirs on the productivity of multinational enterprises: the role of international depth and breadth. Research Policy ,41(5), 848-861.
  24. Kangas, L. M. (2005). An assessment of the relationship between organizational culture and continuous knowledge management initiatives. A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Capella University.
  25. Koohi Khor, M., Kamalian, A.R., Yaghoubi, N.M., & Pour Ezzat, A.A. (2020). Meta-Synthesis Model of Integrated Talent Management. Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 11(1), 120-143. (in Persian).
  26. Lucas, B., G. Claxton and E. Spencer (2013), “Progression in Student Creativity in School: First Steps Towards New Forms of Formative Assessments”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 86, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en.
  27. Mayring, P. (2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt.
  28. Mohaghar, A., Jafarnejad, A., Modares Yazdi, M., Sadeghi Moghaddam, M. R. (2013) Presenting a comprehensive model of information coordination of the automotive supply network using the combined method, Quarterly Journal of Information Technology Management,5(4), 194-161. (in Persian).
  29. OECD, (2008) Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) guidance for Policy Makers. Version 1.1, OECD Regulatory Policy Division Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development, Paris.
  30. Peivasteh, Sadeq (2019) STI Policy Making: Social Aspects and Cocequences, Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 42-57. (in Persian).
  31. Rockwell, K,. Bennett, C, (2004) "Targeting Outcomes of Programs: A Hierarchy for Targeting Outcomes and Evaluating Their Achievement" Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department. 48.
  32. Segone, Marco. (2008). “Evidence-based Policy Making and the Role of Monitoring and Evaluation Within the New Aid Environment.” In Bridging the Gap, The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation in Evidence-Based Policy Making, edited by Marco Segone, 16-45. Switzerland: UNICEF, UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS.
  33. Sandahl, Rolf. (2005). “Government and Evaluation.” In Encyclopedia of Evaluation, edited by Sandra Mathison, 172-74. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412950558.
  34. Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.
  35. Sharimllah, R. D., Chong, S. C., & Lin, B. (2007). Organizational culture and KM processes from the perspective of institution of higher learning, International Journal of Management in Education, 1(1/2), 57-79.
  36. Singh, S. (2016). Integrating social responsibility of university and corporate sector for inclusive growth in india. Higher Education for the Future, 3 (2), 183-196.
  37. Tikhomirova, N., Gritsenko, A., & Pechenkin, A.(2008). University approach to knowledge management. The Journal of information and knowledge management systems,38(1), 16-21.
  38. Van Buren M, E., (1999) A Yardstick for Knowledge Management., Training & Development, pp. 71-78.
  39. Wiig, K.M. (1999). What future knowledge management users may expect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (3), 249-263 .
  40. World Bank (2003): A User’s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis. The World Bank, Washington.
  41. Zack,M., & Micheal, H.(2003). Rethinking the knowledge-based organization. MIT sloan management Review, 34(2), 67-71.