چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی

فراترکیب مدل ارزیابی آثار و پیامدهای سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای کلان: مورد مطالعه جوامع دانشگاهی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی (با رویکردهای کیفی)

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری/ مدیریت/ گرایش مدیریت سیستم‌ها/ دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد/ دانشگاه جامع امام حسین (ع)/ تهران/ ایران

2 گروه مدیریت سیستم/ دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد/ دانشگاه جامع امام حسین (ع)/ تهران/ ایران

چکیده

هدف: با توجه به کاستی‌های موجود، نظام سیاست‌گذاری سازمانی به فرایندی سیستماتیک، هدفمند و منظم برای تولید داده‌های حاصل از عملکرد، پردازش آن‌ها به اطلاعات و تبدیل آن به دانش سیاستی نیاز دارد تا نسبت به کم و کیف تحقق اهداف سیاست‌ها، آثار و پیامدهای آن‌ها و موفقیت یا ناکامی‌شان آگاهی داشته و از آن برای سیاست‌گذاری و تصمیم‌گیری بهره گیرد. ازاین‌رو مسئله اصلی که محقق به تلاش برای رفع آن می‌پردازد تبیین این موضوع است که سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای کلان چه پیامدها و آثاری در پی خواهد داشت.
طراحی/ روش شناسی/ رویکرد: پژوهش حاضر از لحاظ هدف کاربردی، از نظر شیوه گردآوری داده‌ها اسنادی-فراترکیب است. در روند این پژوهش، 408 پژوهش انتخاب شدند که در آن‌ها درباره مولفه‌های ارزیابی سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای مرتبط با جوامع دانشگاهی به طور مستقیم و غیرمستقیم بحث شده بود. برای تحلیل داده‌ها از رویکرد کیفی استفاده شد. برای بررسی اعتبار مطالعات مورد استفاده در این پژوهش از «ابزار حیاتی گلین» استفاده شده است که برای ارزیابی همه طرح‌های پژوهشی کاربردی، قابل استناد است.
یافته‌های پژوهش: در پژوهش حاضر 4 بعد، 16 مولفه و 75 شاخص شناسایی شده است که در نهایت الگوی ارزیابی آثار و پیامدهای سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای جوامع دانشگاهی بر اساس آن‌ها تدوین شده است. ابعاد مدل استخراجی عبارت‌اند از: تربیت و آموزش، پژوهش و نوآوری، خدمات مستشاری و مدیریت دانش.
محدودیت‌ها و پیامدها: در این پژوهش به بررسی تحقیقات علمی در پایگاه‌های تحقیقاتی معتبر پرداخته شده است. از آنجا که مقوله ارزیابی پیامد در حوزه سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای کلان جوامع دانشگاهی سهم ناچیزی از تحقیقات این حوزه را به خود اختصاص داده‌اند، محدودیت این پژوهش را می‌توان تعداد اندک تحقیقات و پژوهشگران عنوان نمود.
پیامدهای عملی: به‌وسیله شاخص‌های موجود در مدل حاضر می‌توان پیامدهای اصلی سیاست‌های وضع شده در جوامع دانشگاهی را مورد سنجش قرار داد و با توجه به نتایج حاصل اطلاعات مفیدی را به تصمیم‌گیران این حوزه ارائه نمود تا از هدررفت منابع و زمان با اتخاذ سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای نامناسب جلوگیری گردد.
ابتکار یا ارزش عملی: این پژوهش اولین پژوهش در خصوص ارائه مدل منسجم در زمینه ارزیابی پیامد سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای جوامع دانشگاهی می‌باشد.
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

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

نویسندگان [English]

  • babak khosravi 1
  • hussein eisaaei 2
  • mohsen miry 2
  • ali tahery 2

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

چکیده [English]

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

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • 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.
چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی
دوره 13، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 52
دی 1401
صفحه 137-160