نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه خوارزمی

2 استاد دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه خوارزمی

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی ابعاد و مؤلفه­های مدیریت توسعه علوم­انسانی، بررسی وضعیت موجود و ارائه مدلی مفهومی انجام شد. روش تحقیق ترکیبی و نوع تحقیق توصیفی پیمایشی بود و داده­ها از طریق سندکاوی، مصاحبه و میدانی جمع­آوری شد. جامعه آماری پژوهش اعضای هیئت­علمی دانشگاههای استان اصفهان بودند که در بخش کیفی با رویکرد نمونه­گیری هدفمند، تعداد 14 نفر و در بخش کمّی با استفاده از روش تصادفی، تعداد 245 نفر به­عنوان مشارکت کنندگان در پژوهش انتخاب شدند. ابزار جمع­آوری اطلاعات شامل مصاحبه نیمه ساختار یافته و پرسشنامه محقق ساخته بود. برای تعیین پایایی و اعتبار ابزار اندازه­گیری نیز از آلفای کرونباخ، روایی محتوایی و همزمان استفاده شد. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده­های کیفی از روش داده بنیاد و داده­های کمّی از شاخصهای توصیفی، برازش و تحلیل عاملی تأییدی استفاده شد. نتایج کلی پژوهش حاکی از آن است که مقوله محوری مطالعه حاضر مشتمل بر سه بعد و 23 مؤلفه است که با توجه به شرایط علّی، زمینه­ای و میانجی، راهبردهایی تدوین و مدل نهایی بر اساس آن ارائه شده است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The identification of humanities development management dimensions and components and providing a conceptual model

نویسندگان [English]

  • Vajiheh Karimi 1
  • Abdolrahim Navehebrahim 2
  • Hamidreza Arasteh 2
  • Mohammadreza Behrangi 2

1 Doctoral Student, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University

2 Professor,Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University

چکیده [English]

The present study aimed to identify the dimensions and components of humanities development management and to review the existing situation and to propose a conceptual model. A mixed design method was chosen for this study. Data was collected via text mining, interviews and field studies.  Statistical population was faculty members in Isfahan province universities.  Using purposive sampling method, a total of 14 individuals were selected for interviews. In the quantitative section, 245 faculty members were randomly selected to participate in the study. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews and researcher made questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability and validity of measuring tool. Grounded Theory was explored for the analysis of qualitative data. For quantitative data, descriptive indicators and confirmatory factor analysis was used.  The overall results indicated that the central issue of current study consisted of three dimensions and 23 components. According to causal, contextual and mediator circumstances, strategies for developing a model is presented.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Management
  • Scientific Development
  • Humanities
References
1. Abedi, A., Oreize, H.R., & Shavakhi, A.R. (2005). A meta-analysis of affective factors to the application of research findings in the education of Iran. Journal of Education Innovation, No.12, (in Persian).
2. Arasteh, H.R. (2005). The role of higher education on the development view of Iran 1404. Journal of Rahyaft, (31), 33-42(in Persian).
3. Arasteh, H.R. (2003). Academic freedom; encyclopedia of higher education. Tehran: Great Persian Encyclopedia Foundation Press, 1, 4(in Persian).
4. Arasteh, H.R. (2007). The strategic change in universities and higher education centers: Planning for survival and success. Tehran: Imam Hossein University Press, (in Persian).
5. Asadzadeh, Z. (2007). Investigating the scientific? Information production by academic staff at university. Journal of Ye-Ketab, 18(2), 215-30 (in Persian).
6. Azizi, N. (2008). Education and research in universities. The National Congress of the Humanities, 6(in Persian).
7. Azkia, M. (2002). Sociology of development and underdevelopment in Iran. Tehran: Information Press (in Persian).
8. Banner, J.M., & Cannon, H.C. (1999). The elements of teaching. Yale University Press.
9. Behrangi, M.R., & Hoseinian, S. (2008). Increasing the effectiveness of humanities and reducing barriers to mutual understanding of other disciplines. Humanities Congress International, (8), 532(in Persian).
10. Carayanis, E.G., & Campbel, D.F.J. (2012). Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, London: Prayer Publisher, London.
11. Cheng, Y.C. (2003). Fostering knowledge and wisdom in globalization education. Hong Kong: Center for Research and International Collaboration, 2213-2250.
12. Dickson, D. (2004). Nature. 432, 271, 30 Nov.
13. Edward, I. (1994). A review of the literature on dissemination and knowledge utilization.
14. Ekrami, M. (2003). The model of educational leadership at the University of the State of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 9(3), 49-86 (in Persian).
15. Eyvazi, M. R. (2008). Humanities pathology and barriers in Iran. The National Congress of the Humanities, 5(in Persian).
16. Fadeeva, Z., & Mochizuki, Y. (2010). Higher education for today and tomorrow: University appraisal for diversity, Innovation and Change towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability Science, 5(2), 249-256.
17. Farasatkhah, M., & Tofighi, J. (2002). Structural accessories of scientific development in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 8(3), (in Persian).
18. Farasatkhah, M. (2005). The purpose of role of the scientific community in the policy-making and evaluation of policies process in the Iran. Country Scientific Policies Research Center, Tehran: No. 42(in Persian).
19. Fazekas, T., & Varro, V. (2001). Scientometrices and publishing in Hungarian Medical Science. Ethical and Technical Issues, ORV Hetil, 142(45), 2493-9.
20. Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell, 136(1).
21. Fullan, M. (1991). A review of the literature on dessimination and knowledge utilization. The Intended Users. Retrieved from http://www.Ncddr.org/du/ products/review/review 10.html.
22. Godet, M. (1994). From anticipation to action. UNESCO Publication, (12), 235.
23. Ghaneirad, M. A. (2003). A pre-model conversation in sociology of Iran. Journal of Iran Sociology, 5 (1), (in Persian).
24. Gray, M. (2008). Knowledge production in social work: The gold standard of mode 2. 34th Biannual Congress of the International Association of Schools of Social work (IASSW) Transcending Global-Local Divides, Durban, South Africa, 20-24th.
25. Hamidizadeh, M. (2004). Knowledge creation in universities. The Conference of Higher Education and Sustainable Development, Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (in Persian).
26. Havelock, R. G., & Benne, K. D. (2003). An exploratory study of knowledge utilization. Retrieved from www.ncddr.org/ du/products/.
27. Hennink, M., & Stephenson, R. (2004). Using research to inform health policy: Barriers and strategies in developing countries. Opportunity and Choices Working Paper, (9), 1-37.
28. Holt, R. (2008). Knowledge utilization in education. Retrieved from WWW.thedratner. com.
29. Hopkins, D.A. (2001). Teachers guide to classroom research. Third Edition Buckingham, U.K., P. 78.
30. Jackson, S. E., Hilt, M. A., & Denisi, A. S. (2003). Managing knowledge for sustain competetive advantage. San Francisco: USA. Black Well Publishing.
31. Karimian, Z., Sabbaghian, Z., Saleh Sedghpour, B., & Lotfi, F. (2010). Examining the interaction between society, researchers and university science. Research in Medical Education, 2(1), 1-9(in Persian).
32. Khorsandi, A. (2008). The humanities in Iran and ways to improve it, The International Congress of the Humanities, 7(in Persian).
33. Kuhn, T. (1990). Possible worlds in history of science possible world in humanities, arts and science. Berlin: Degruyter, 9-32.
34. Leach, A. J. (2011). The summery of statement in congress of America. Base of National Endowment for the Humanities.
35. Maracas, G.M. (1999). Decision support system in the twenty – first century.
36. Mehrmohammadi, M. (2000). Preparation of national education document. Tehran: Ministry of Education (in Persian).
37. Mirzapurarmaki, A. (2009). The importance and necessity of development of humanities and religious science production. Journal of Rahyaft, 49 (in Persian).
38. Mousavi, M. F. (2010). Exploring the possibility of Iran scientific promote science in ten producing countries in the world. Journal of Rahyaft, (30), (in Persian) .
39. Norouzzadeh, R., & Rezaei, N. (2011). Scientific development in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Science Production, 2(in Persian).
40. Nowotny, T., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 32(5), 230.
41. Peterson, J.C. (2007). Framework for research utilization applied to seven case studies. America.
42. Pramod, J. (2003). History of INSA. New Delhi.
43. Rabani, A., Ghasemi, V., Rabbani, R., Adibi, M., & Ofoghi, N. (2011). Sociological analysis of science production methods: Reflection on modern approaches. Journal of Cultural Researches, 4(4), (in Persian).
44. Rafipour, F. (2002). Barriers of scientific growth in Iran and solutions to its. Tehran: Eteshar Corporation (in Persian).
45. Riazi, A. M. (2008). The model of impact: A proposal to increase of impact factor in the humanities research in the development of society. The Congress of the Humanities, 7(in Persian).
46. Sarookhani, B., & Malek, H. (2008). Sociological analysis to the role of scientific community in the process of teaching and research policy in Iran. The Congress of the Humanities, 8(in Persian).
47. Sabouri, A.A. (2002). Review of Iran’s research record in 2002. Journal of Rahyaft, (28), 87-96(in Persian).
48. Sadeghi, A., & Ebrahimzadeh, A. (2008). Higher education and increasing competencies in humanities students. National Congress of the Humanities, 8 (in Persian).
49. Safi, A. (2007). The efforts, challenges future policy and importance of research in education. Journal of Education Bulletin, Institute of Education, (35), (in Persian).
50. Saki, R. (2006). A effective step forward for improving activities: Research management training in educational. Journal of Research Training, (62-63), (in Persian).
51. Sampt, B., & Mowery, D. (2005). University in national innovation system. P. 209.
52. Scarbrough, H. (2001). Knowledge a la mode: The rise of knowledge management and its implications for views of knowledge production. Social Epistemology, 15(3), 201-213.
53. Schler, M. (1996). Problems of a society of knowledge. tr. M. S. Frings, P. 100
54. Schofer, E., Ramirez, F.O., & Meyer, J.W. (2000). The effects of science on national economic development, 1970 to 1990. 835-7.
55. Shariatmadari. A. (2005). The position of the humanities in the production of knowledge. Tehran: Islamic Culture Office of Print Publication (in Persian).
56. Sobhaninezhad, M., & Afshar, A. (2009). Removing barriers to the movement of science production: Basic mechanism in research innovation activities in university. Journal of Management at the Islamic University, 41(1), (in Persian).
57. Stigler, J.W. (2001). Cultures of mathematlinics instruction in Japanese and American elementary school.
58. Tsao, J. Y., Boyack, K. W., Coltrin, M. E., Turnely, J. G., & Gauster, W. B. (2008). A framework for understanding knowledge production. Research Policy, (37), 330-352.
59. Zakersalehi, Gh.R. (2007). Prerequisites for scientific development in Iran. Tehran: Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, (44), (in Persian).