نویسنده
استادیار گروه مدیریت و کارآفرینی دانشگاه کاشان
چکیده
در سال‌های اخیر، سیاست‌ها، آیین‌نامه‌ها و رویه‌هایِ هم‌افزایی در آموزش عالی تدوین شده است که حاصل تعامل آنها نتایج نامطلوبی است که دانشگاه را ناخواسته به سمت رفتارهای غیراخلاقی در فرایند پژوهش سوق داده است. رشد بی‌رویه دانشگاه‌ها و مؤسسات آموزش عالی، آیین‌نامه‌های دفاع از پایان‌نامه و رساله‌های تحصیلات تکمیلی و مقاله‌محور بودن آیین‌نامه‌های جدید ارتقای اعضای هیئت علمی پیشران‌های این تغییرات به‌شمار می‌رود. هدف از این پژوهش بررسی اثرهای جانبی و گاهی نامطلوب این دگردیسی در آموزش عالی و تأثیر این عوامل بر چرخه پویای حیات پژوهش و فرآورده‌های پژوهشی آن به‌ویژه تولید مقاله بود. بدین منظور، با بررسی ادبیات پژوهش پیامدهای این راهبردها در آموزشعالی استخراج و سپس با استفاده از ابزار حلقه‌های علّت- معلولی در قالب 5 زیرسیستم شامل غلبه آثار پژوهشی بی‌کیفیت، غیرکاربردی و مشابه، افزایش مجلات علمی و تشکیل شبکه‌های قدرت حول آن برای چاپ مقاله، گسترش سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی و هنجارشکنی‌های علمی، گسترش بازار برون‌سپاری کارهای پژوهشی و سایه‌نویسی و تجاری‌شدن آموزش عالی و تغییر نگاه اعضای هیئت علمی از نگاه کریمانه به نگاه ابزاری به دانشجویان مدلسازی شد. مدل تلفیقی و نهایی نیز شامل 10 حلقه تقویتی و 3 حلقه تعادلی بود و تصویر کلی از اثرهای جانبی این تغییر در سیاست‌ها و کنش‌های متقابل آن را نشان می‌دهد. درنهایت، از منظر کل‌نگرانه، مدل تعاملی آسیب‌‌های محتمل این تحولات ترسیم شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Using a systemic thinking approach to study externalities of higher education policies: a critique of the paper-based faculty promotion regulations
نویسنده [English]
- Zahra Sadeqi Arani
Faculty Member and Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kashan University, Kashan, Iran.
چکیده [English]
In recent years, synergistic policies, regulations, and procedures have been developed in higher education that have resulted undesirable outcomes that have led the university to unethical behaviors in the research process. The irregular growth of universities and higher education institutions, changes in regulations of theses and dissertations, paper-based faculties promotion regulations are the drivers of these changes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the externalities and of this metamorphosis in higher education and the effect of these factors on the dynamic life cycle of research and its products, especially scientific papers. For this purpose, the consequences of these strategies were extracted by literature review. So, using the tools of cause-effect loops model in the form of 5 subsystems including: dominance of poor quality research works, non-practical and similar research, increasing scientific journals and forming power networks around it to publish articles, spread of research misconduct and scientific violations, expanding the market for outsourcing research and ghostwriting and commercializing higher education and changing faculty members' views from a generous to an instrumental view to the students, integrated and final model also included 10 reinforcing loops and 3 balancing loops of the externalities of this change in policies and their interactions have been identified. Finally, with a holistic perspective, an interactive model of the potential externalities was developed.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Academic promotion regulations
- Performance Measurement
- Cause and effect loops
- Higher Education
- Scientific papers writing
- Research ethics
2. Ardabili, Y. (1997) Evaluation Methods in Governmental and Non-Governmental Sectors. Tehran: Besat Publications [in Persian].
3. Azizi, N. (2013). A study of ways to improve research performance of humanities faculty members. Strategy for Culture, 6(21), 7-33 [in Persian].
4. Boosliki, H. (2019) Ethical Evaluation of Academic Promotion Regulations Approved 08/03/2016, 2th Conference of Ethical University, University of Tehran [in Persian].
5. Bosch, X., & Ross, J.S. (2012). Ghostwriting: Research Misconduct, Plagiarism, or Fool's Gold?
6. Chopani, H., Siadat, S.A., & Rajaipour, S. (2020). Organizational factors related to research misconduct with emphasis on professional ethics in research. Ethics in Science and Technology, 15 (1), 71-78 [in Persian].
7. Comprehensive educational and research regulations of Technology University of Amirkabir (Tehran Polytechnic) approved in 2015 [in Persian].
8. Es'haghi, F., Mohammadi, R., & Parand, K. (2008). Proper performance evaluation system of faculty members (criteria and procedures). Higher Education Letter, 1(2), 93-111 [in Persian].
9. Fereidouni, S., & Rouhani, Sh. (2019). Higher education expansion policy in Iran and its impact on educational justice. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 25 (2), 1-21 [in Persian].
10. Ghaedi, M., Madhoshi, M., Razeghi, N., & Safaei-Ghadikolaei, A. (2018). Causes and context of academic corruption and its consequences. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 24 (1), 113-135 [in Persian].
11. Ghasemi, M., Roshan, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2018). From promotion to free fall: The share of Iranian researchers in the market of invalid scientific journals. Higher Education in Iran, 10 (1), 25-56 [in Persian].
12. Ghorbani Tanha, S.A.K. (2019). Ethics in the Thesis Process, 2th Conference of Ethical University, University of Tehran [in Persian].
13. Gorji, M.B., & Siami, S. (2008). Identification of performance evaluation criteria for faculty members of Islamic Azad University. Researcher (Management), 5 (11), 19-10 [in Persian].
14. Hakkak, M., Hozni, S., Morovati, H., & Akhlaghi, T. (2018). Research diagnosis in postgraduate students of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. RME, 10 (2), 46-57 [in Persian].
15. Hemati, R. (2013). Quantity-oriented development of supreme education and academic life in Iran. Management in Islamic University, 2(5), 127-156 [in Persian].
16. Iranian Futurology, (2018). Retreived from http://s8.picofile.com/file/ 8335475368/Ayandeban_Iran1397.pdf.html
17. Jahaniyan, R. (2012). Assessing the teaching and researching performance of the faculty members of Islamic Azad University-Central Tehran Branch. Educational Research Journal, 8(33), 1-26 [in Persian].
18. Jamali Zavareh, B., Nasr Esfahani, A.R., & Nili, M.R. (2018). Analysis of faculty promotion regulations: Challenges and consequences. Higher Education in Iran, 10 (1), 79-98 [in Persian].
19. Kazemi, A., & Asghri, Z. (2020). 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].
20. Khaji, A. (2020). Non-financial ethical conflicts in bio-medical research: Challenges and solutions. Medical Ethics, 13(44), 1-11 [in Persian].
21. Khodayari Fard, M. (2019). An Introduction to the Fundamental Values of the University Ethics Program, 2th Conference of Ethical University, University of Tehran [in Persian].
22. Mahmoudi, B. (2019). Manifestations of the Dominance of Distorted Functions and Inadequacies of the Higher Education System. 2th Cconference of Ethical UniversityUuniversity of Tehran [in Persian].
23. Mirsepasi, N. (2002) Strategic Management of Human Resources and Labor Relations. Mir Publications. 21th edition. Tehran [in Persian].
24. Mokhtari, Gh. (2015). Systemic Thinking (Fundamentals, Tools and Methods). Qom: Qom University Press [in Persian].
25. Osare, F., & Afifian, F.A. (2018). Critique of the regulations for the promotion of faculty members of universities and educational institutions of the country: Pathology and presenting solutions. Quarterly Journal of Information and Communication Book Review, 4 (15), 13-22 [in Persian].
26. Palaima, T., & Skaržauskienė, A. (2010). Systems thinking as a platform for leadership performance in a complex world, Baltic. Journal of Management, 5(3), 330-355.
27. Rafiezadeh, A., & Mirsepassi, N. (2017). Designing a model of performance management with an emphasis on higher education. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 7(17), 33-55 [in Persian].
28. Rajabzadeh Assharha, A.H. (2017). What is ghostwriting? A Look at the Ethical Angles of ghostwriting Retreived from http://www.samimnoor.ir/view/fa/ArticleView?itemId=59 [in Persian].
29. Rohhollahi, A.A., Vosoughi Niri, A., & Zeraati, M. (2020). Evaluate the performance of faculty members in universities. Journal of New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 4 (39), 1-21 [in Persian].
30. Roshan, M., & Ghasemi, M. (2018). Behavioral analysis of faculty members of humanities and social sciences faculties in the process of Academic promotion. Higher Education in Iran, 10 (1), 1-23 [in Persian].
31. Rouhani, Sh., & Rashidi, Z. (2018). Analysis of lived experience of faculty members of the process of Academic promotion; A phenomenological study. Higher Education in Iran, 10 (1), 133-157 [in Persian].
32. Shah Ghasemi, E. (2019). Ethics of Science in Iran. 2th Conference of Ethical University, University of Tehran [in Persian].
33. Shamshiri, B., Salimi, Q., & Sangi, F. (2018). Criteria for promotion of faculty members in the field of humanities from the perspective of the experiences of prestigious universities in the world and the experiences of faculty members of Shiraz University Combined research. Higher Education in Iran, 10 (1), 99-131 [in Persian].
34. Shirbegi, N., & Saedmouchshi, L. (2018). Phenomenology of faculty members' experiences of the process of promotion. Higher Education in Iran, 10 (1), 57-77 [in Persian].
35. Sterman, J. (2003). System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division.
36. Stone, R. (2016). In Iran, a shady market for papers flourishes. Science, 353(6305), 1197.
37. Yousefi, H., Asadbegi, M., & Haji Khaje Loo, S.R. (2020). Extracting the criteria for faculty members rank promotion through the application of comparative study of selected universities. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 25 (4), 73-95 [in Persian].
38. Zare Bidaki, M. (2017). Key values in the new academic promotion regulations. DSME, 4 (1), 1-3 [in Persian].
)