پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 479 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,665 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,303,989 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,466,221 |
بازخوانی نقش دانشجویان در حکمرانی دانشگاه با رویکرد کیفی (نمونه‌کاوی: چند دانشگاه منتخب شهر تهران) | ||
| مطالعات برنامه ریزی آموزشی | ||
| دوره 11، شماره 21، شهریور 1401، صفحه 16-32 اصل مقاله (912.87 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/eps.2023.20720.1999 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| احمد کیخا* 1؛ فهیمه حمدی2؛ جعفر توفیقی داریان3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد و مدیریت مالی آموزش عالی، گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشکدة علوم‌تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه تهران، | ||
| 2رشته آموزش عالی ، گرایش مدیریت آموزش عالی ، گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی ، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی ، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی | ||
| 3استاد دانشکده مهندسی شیمی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 22 دی 1399، تاریخ بازنگری: 05 شهریور 1400، تاریخ پذیرش: 05 مهر 1400 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: مشارکت دانشجویان در ساختار حکمرانی در درون دانشگاه از مهمترین مسائلی است که سالهاست مورد توجه نظام‌های دانشگاهی پیشرو جهان قرار گرفته است. با این وجود این حوزه در ادبیات پژوهشی داخل کشور مغفول مانده است. لیکن، هدف از پژوهش حاضر، تحلیل نقش دانشجویان در حکمرانی درون دانشگاه می‌باشد. روششناسی: این پژوهش کیفی با راهبرد تحلیل محتوا عرفی تدوین شده است. جامعه آماری این پژوهش را دانشجویان دکتری آموزش‌عالی در تمامی گرایش‌ها در دانشگاه‌های تهران، شهیدبهشتی و علامه طباطبائی تشکیل می‌دهند که با استفاده از راهبرد نمونه‌گیری با حداکثرتنوع 35 دانشجوی دکتری از دانشگاه‌های نامبرده گزینش شدند. داده‌های با استفاده از مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختار یافته گردآوری شد. یافتهها: یافتهها در بخش موانع فراروی دانشجویان برای مشارکت در شش مولفه اصلی؛ ناکارآمدی حکمرانی نظام آموزشی؛ حکمرانی غیرآکادمیک درون دانشگاهی؛ نظام یاددهی و یادگیری نامناسب؛ کژکارکردی قوانین و مقررات؛ عدم مشارکت دانشجویان در حکمرانی و ضعف فرهنگی با سیزده زیرمولفه بدست آمد. سپس متناظر با این شش مولفه راهکارهای برای تسریع مشارکت دانشجویان در حکمرانی درون دانشگاه در قالب شش مولفه اصلی با سیزده زیرمولفه جمع‌بندی شد. در پایان بر اساس یافتهها توصیه‌های سیاستی برای نظام آموزش‌عالی ایران بیان شده است. نتیجهگیری و پیشنهادات: نقش دانشجویان در حکمرانی درون دانشگاه مسئله مهمی است که تاکنون در ادبیات پژوهشی داخل کشور مغفول مانده‌است. همه دانشجویان مشارکت کننده در این پژوهش بر اهمیت این موضوع ادغان داشته‌اند. با این وجود، حدود 38 درصد از دانشجویان هیچ تجربه مشارکتی در تصمیم‌گیری‌های دانشگاه نداشته‌اند. بر این اساس، یافته‌های این مطالعه بازنمایی کلی از عوامل بازنده و تسهیلگر مشارکت دانشجوان در حکمرانی ارائه داده است که می‌تواند مبنای برای سیاستگذاری در این زمینه قرار گیرد. نوآوری و اصالت: شناسایی مهمترین عوامل بازدارنده مشارکت دانشجویان در حکمرانی درون دانشگاه و ارائه راهکارهای برای رفع این عوامل بازدارنده برای مشارکت بیشتر دانشجویان در حکمرانی دانشگاه است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| مشارکت دانشجویان؛ حکمرانی دانشگاه؛ مدیریت نوین دانشگاه؛ سیاستگذاری دانشگاه؛ حکمرانی دانشجو | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Re-reading the role of students in university governance with a qualitative approach (Case study: some selected universities in Tehran) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| ahmad keykha1؛ Fahime Hamdi2؛ jafar towfighi3 | ||
| 11. Ph.D. student of Economics and Finance Management of Higher Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Higher education , Higher Education Management , Educational Management and Planning Department , Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences , Allameh Tabataba’I University , Iran | ||
| 3Professor, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective: Student participation in the governance structure within the university is one of the most important issues that the world's leading academic systems have considered for many years. However, this field has been neglected in the domestic research literature. However, this study aims to analyze students' role in governance within the university. Method: This qualitative research has been compiled with a Conventional Content Analysis strategy. The statistical population of this study consists of Ph.D. students in higher education in all fields in Tehran, Shahid Beheshti, and Allameh Tabatabai universities, who were selected from the mentioned universities using a sampling strategy with a maximum variety of 35 Ph.D. students. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews Findings: In the Findings, the section of barriers for students to participate in six main components; Inefficiency of the governance of the educational system; Intra-academic non-academic governance; Improper teaching and learning system; Dysfunctional rules and regulations; Students' non-participation in governance and cultural weakness was achieved with thirteen subcomponents. Then, corresponding to these six components, strategies for accelerating students' participation in governance within the university were summarized in the form of six main components with thirteen sub-components. Finally, based on the findings, policy recommendations for the Iranian higher education system are stated. Conclusion: The role of students in governance within the university is an important issue that has been neglected in the domestic research literature. All students participating in this study emphasized the importance of this issue. However, about 38% of students have no experience in participating in university decisions. Accordingly, the findings of this study provide a general representation of the losers and facilitators of student participation in governance that can be the basis for policy in this area Innovation and originality: Identifying the most important factors preventing students' participation in university governance and providing solutions to remove these factors for greater participation of students in university governance. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Student participation, university governance, new university management, university policy, student governance | ||
| اصل مقاله | ||
|
Introduction One of these functional developments of universities to meet new environmental needs is to redefine the relationship between university stakeholders and the government in university governance (Austin & Jones, 2016; Núñez & Leiva,2018). University stakeholders in university governance and management include; They become managers, faculty members, students, board of trustees, and foreign representatives (industry, society, etc.). Researchers believe that university governance does not mean that all stakeholders have the same status and power in the governance structure and play the same role, but rather that decision-making at the university should be based on democratic voting with the participation of all stakeholders. Be (Wang & Zhang, 2019). Students are one of the most critical stakeholders in university decision-making. Numerous studies have pointed to the importance of the role and involvement of students in governance within the university (Lizzio & Wilson, 2009). However, research evidence suggests that various countries' student participation in government and academic elections is low (Parejo & Lorente,2012). Estimates of European countries' student participation in governance and university elections are less than one-third. (Bergan, 2011). In addition, little research literature is available on the role of students in university governance (Trowler, 2010). There are many reasons for this; Including; Lack of trust of faculty members and administrators in students' decision-making ability, lack of continuous and active participation of students in the university decision-making process, lack of background and students' proper understanding of university decisions, the inability of student representatives in student institutions, extremism of student activists (Moore, 1995). In addition, there is long-term resistance to accepting students as legitimate university governance beneficiaries (Naylor,2019). Given the epidemic challenges that plague academic systems around the world. Reengineering and reconstructing the structure of academic systems, especially from the cradle of governance and management structure, has become more intense. However, identifying and analyzing the share of different stakeholders in the university's governance has become doubly necessary. Students are one of the key stakeholders in university governance. Students will have a direct role in the development of various ecosystems after graduation, as well as the countries' human capital of the countries. However, so far, few studies have been conducted in this area. In particular, no study has been shown in the domestic research literature as far as the authors of this study are aware. Therefore, research in this field is very important and vital to fill this research gap. The need for this issue is felt more and more in the higher education system of Iran, as in other developing countries, which seek greater efficiency and effectiveness in their university system. Because looking at the upstream documents (comprehensive scientific map of the country, development plans, vision document 1404), the common theme of all of them is the comprehensive development of the country (economic, political, cultural, social, and scientific) against other countries due to unfair international sanctions. This is possible, as mentioned in the documents, by emphasizing the activism and leadership of universities. Therefore, conducting studies in the field of university governance is very important to enhance the efficiency capacity of the university system in the current turbulent situation because of the endless global challenges. Accordingly, this study aims to analyze students' role in governance within the university. To achieve this goal, two questions have been raised; What are the most significant deterrents for students to participate in governance within the university? And what are the most important ways to remove barriers to student participation in governance within the university? Methods: The present study is written with a qualitative approach. In this qualitative research, the Conventional Content Analysis strategy has been used in particular. The statistical population of this research consists of Ph.D. students in higher education (all majors: Economics, Management, University Development Planning, Curriculum Planning, and Information Technology) in Tehran, Shahid Beheshti, and Allameh Tabatabai Universities in Tehran. For sampling, the purposive sampling method Homogenous Sampling has been used. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. Two strategies have been used to calculate reliability; First) member checking; is one of the most important techniques for validating findings (Cho & Trent, 2006). In this study, after analyzing the interviews, the findings were shared with some of the participants, and their views were validated by reflecting their views. Second) was the peer debriefing. Results: Findings in the section of barriers for students to participate in six main components; Inefficiency of the governance of the educational system; Intra-academic non-academic governance; Improper teaching and learning system; Dysfunctional rules and regulations; Students' non-participation in governance and cultural weakness was achieved with thirteen subcomponents. Then, corresponding to these six components, strategies for accelerating students' participation in governance within the university were summarized in the form of six main components with thirteen sub-components. Finally, based on the findings, policy recommendations for the Iranian higher education system are stated. Conclusion: The role of students in governance within the university is an important issue that has been neglected in the domestic research literature. All students participating in this study emphasized the importance of this issue. However, about 38% of students have no experience in participating in university decisions. Accordingly, the findings of this study provide a general representation of the losers and facilitators of student participation in governance that can be the basis for policy in this area.
Funding: There is no funding support Authors' contribution: F.H participated in the collection of interviews, A.K participated in the analysis of the findings and wrote the article. Dr. J.T participated in the review of the article. Conflict of interest: Authors declared no conflict of interest Acknowledgments: We thank all the students who participated in our research
| ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adeola, A. O., & Bukola, A. B. (2014). Students’ participation in governance and organizational effectiveness in universities in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 400. Akinyeye, T. V. (2019). Administrative effectiveness in university system: the trajectory of students’ involvement in governance. Journal of Education Research and Rural Community Development, 1(1), 73-88. Ashuri, M, Quaidali, H (2012). Challenges and problems of managing student organizations. Management in Islamic University, 2 (1) [In Persian] Austin, I., & Jones, G. A. (2016). Governance of higher education: Global perspectives, theories, and practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Bergan, S. (2011). Higher education governance and democratic participation: the university and democratic culture. In S. Bergan (Ed.), Not by bread alone (pp. 15–32). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Borg, C. (2019). The Role of Students in the Governance of Public Higher Education: a Case Study of Malta. Journal of Intercultural Management, 11(3), 1-20. Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640–654. Carey, P. (2018). The impact of institutional culture, policy and process on student engagement in university decision-making. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 22(1), 11-18. Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative research, 6(3), 319-340. Dunne, E., Zandstra, R., Brown, T., & Nurser, T. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education. Education Enhancement Gachoka, J. M. (2014). Factors influencing student involvement in university Governance: a case of bachelor of education (arts) of The university of Nairobi, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). González, I., Collet, J., & Sanmartín, J. (2007). Participació, política i joves. Una aproximació a les pràctiques polítiques, la participació social i l’afecció política de la joventut catalana. Barcelona: Institut de Govern i Polítiques Públiques. Gvaramadze, I. (2011). Student engagement in the Scottish quality enhancement framework. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1), 19-36. Jungblut, J., & Weber, R. (2012). National student governance in Germany: the case of fzs. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(1), 47-62. Klemenčič, M. (2012). The Changing Conceptions of Student Participation in HE Governance in the EHEA. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu & L. Wilson (Eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms (pp. 631– 653). Heidelberg: Springer. Li, X., & Zhao, G. (2018). Democratic Involvement in Higher Education: A Study of Chinese Student E-participation in University Governance. Higher Education Policy, 1-23. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2009). Student participation in university governance: the role conceptions and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental committees. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 69-84. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2009). Student participation in university governance: the role conceptions and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental committees. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 69-84. Luescher, T. M. (2005). Student governance in Africa: Thematic summary of key literature. Retrieved August, 12, 2013. Macfarlane, B. (2005). The disengaged academic: The retreat from citizenship. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(4), 296–312. Martı´n, I. (2007). La participacio´n polı´tica de los estudiantes universitarios dentro y fuera de la Universidad. Panorama Social 6: 119–32. McComas, K., Besley, J. C., & Black, L. W. (2010). The rituals of public meetings. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 122-130. Meeuwissen, S. N., Spruijt, A., van Veen, J. W., & de Goeij, A. F. (2019). Student participation in governance of medical and veterinary education: experiences and perspectives of student representatives and program directors. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(4), 665-690. Miles, J., Miller, M., & Nadler, D. P. (2008). Increasing Participation in Student Governance Through First-Year Programs. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 15(2). Mohammadpour, A (2018). Anti-Methodology: Philosophical Backgrounds and Practical Procedures in Qualitative Methodology. Publications: Logos [In Persian] Mohammadzadeh, Z, Mortazavi, S & Legzian, M (2014). Typology of implicit theories of adherence using conventional content analysis approach. Iranian Management Sciences Quarterly, 9 (36) [In Persian] Moore, P. L. (1995). Perspectives on Student Participation in University Governance: An Update. NASPA Journal, 32(3), 198-207. Mthethwa, V., & Chikoko, V. (2020). Does participation in university governance add value to a student’s academic experience? South African Journal of Higher Education, 34(4), 211-229. Muhsin, S., Nurkhin, A., Pramusinto, H., Afsari, N., & Arham, A. F. (2020). The Relationship of Good University Governance and Student Satisfaction. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(1). Naylor, R. (2019). Old technologies, new opportunities: Rethinking traditional approaches to student engagement in Australia. In M. Tanaka (Ed.), Student engagement and quality assurance in higher education (pp. 57–72). London: Routledge. Naylor, R., Dollinger, M., Mahat, M., & Khawaja, M. (2020). Students as customers versus as active agents: conceptualising the student role in governance and quality assurance. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-14. Núñez, J., & Leiva, B. (2018). The effects of a tripartite ‘participative’university senate on university governance: the case of the University of Chile. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(6), 749-767. Omal, F. (2019). Contestations of Stakeholder Participation in University Governance: A Case of a Historically Black University. Available at SSRN 3415478. Parejo, J. L., & Lorente, J. (2012). From student associations to CEUNE: the development of student representation in Spain. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(1), 78-94. Paya, Ali (2018). University system, local and global challenges, and interaction with the social environment. Rahyaft, 29 (76) [In Persian]Planas, A., Soler, P., Fullana, J., Pallisera, M., & Vilà, M. (2013). Student participation in university governance: the opinions of professors and students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 571-583. Pourhasan, R, Salarzahi, H, Aghili Roshan, S, Yaqoubi, N & Dehghani, M (2019). Presenting a four-layer model for the feasibility and effective establishment of good governance in higher education. Research in educational systems, 14 [In Persian] Rezaei, H, Ejtehadi, M, Ghorchian, N & Mohammad Davoodi, A (2016). Assessing the state of good university governance with organizational independence and accountability. Strategic Management Studies Quarterly, 38 [In Persian] Rodgers, T., Freeman, R., Williams, J., & Kane, D. (2011). Students and the governance of higher education: A UK perspective. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(3), 247-260. Rudbari, J, Agha Mirzaei, T, Brimani, K and Saeed Abadi, R (2019). Investigating the academic independence gap from the perspective of academic experts (case study of Noshirvani University of Medical Sciences and Technology). Journal of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 10 (5) [In Persian] Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative inquiry, 4(2), 280-292. Strydom, F., & Loots, S. (2020). The student voice as contributor to quality education through institutional design. South African Journal of Higher Education, 34(5), 20-34. Tamrat, W. (2020). The exigencies of student participation in university governance: Lip services and bottlenecks. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(1), 35-47. Tanaka, M. (2019). The international diversity of student engagement. In M. Tanaka (Ed.), Student engagement and quality assurance in higher education (pp. 1–8). London: Routledge Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy, 11(1), 1-15. Wang, Z., & Zhang, R. (2019). A Study on the Mechanisms of American Students’ Participation in University Governance. In 2019 International Conference on Management, Education Technology and Economics (ICMETE 2019) (pp. 121-125). Atlantis Press. World Bank [Education Group Human Development Network] (2002). Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. A World Bank Report. Draft 16 April 2002. Zakersalehi, G (2009). Examining the legal and managerial aspects of the independence of universities in Iran (the subject of Article 49 of the Fourth Development Plan Law) and developing executive strategies for its realization. Higher Education Research and Planning Quarterly, 53 [In Persian] | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 737 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 449 |
||