فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی

آثار و پیامدهای دانشگاهِ عملکردمحور از دیدگاه حامیان و منتقدان: فراترکیب کیفی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

2 دانشیار، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

3 استاد، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

4 استاد، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران

10.52547/irphe.28.2.231

چکیده

یکی از پیامدهای اجرای بودجه­ ریزی مبتنی بر عملکرد، توجه و تمرکز دانشگاه بر شاخص ­ها و نتایج پایانی یا عملکردمحور شدن دانشگاه­ است. در دهه اخیر، استفاده از مدل دانشگاهِ عملکردمحور در جهان فراگیر شده است. از آنجا که استفاده از این الگو برای دانشگاه­ های ایران در دستور کار سیاستگذاران قرار دارد، شناسایی آثار و پیامدهای اجرای این مدل از دیدگاه حامیان و منتقدان به ­عنوان هدف و مسئله اصلی پژوهش در نظر گرفته شد. روش پژوهش کیفی و از نوع فرا ترکیب بررسی اسناد بود. اسناد مورد بررسی از بین 788 سند مرتبط انتخاب شدند که همگی به زبان لاتین، مرتبط با بودجه‌ریزی مبتنی بر عملکرد و در پایگاه‌های داده معتبر از سال2010 تا 2020 منتشر شده بودند. در فرایند انتخاب با توجه به ارتباط موضوعی قوی با توجه به سه شاخص عنوان، چکیده و محتوا، تعداد 25 سند علمی انتخاب و روایی محتوایی این اسناد با روش ابزار ارزیابی حیاتی (CASP < /span>) احراز شد. در مرحله تجزیه و تحلیل اسناد منتخب، زیرمؤلفه‌ها و کدهای باز این اسناد با روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی استخراج و سپس ذیل مؤلفه‌های اصلی و ابعاد پژوهش دسته‌بندی و ترکیب شد. برای اعتبار یافته‌ها از روش مقایسه نظر پژوهشگران با فرد خبره استفاده شد که ضریب توافق کاپا 786/0 بود. یافته‌ها در بعد آثار مثبت اجرای مدل و از دیدگاه حامیان شامل افزایش رقابت دانشگاهی، ارتقای کارایی و رشد شاخص‌های کمّی دانشگاه و بهبود مسئولیت‌پذیری، پاسخگویی و مشارکت دانشگاه بود. پیامدهای منفی نیز از دیدگاه منتقدان شامل تهدید عدالت دانشگاهی، کاهش اثربخشی و تهدید شدن شاخص‌های کیفی دانشگاهی و تهدید شدن ماهیت، استقلال، آزادی آکادمیک و بروز مقاومت دانشگاه بود.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects and consequences of implementing performance-based university model; the Views of advocates and critics; A qualitative meta-synthesis approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zargham Faramarzi Nia 1
  • Hamid Farhadi Rad 2
  • Yadollah Mehralizadeh 3
  • Rahamatollah Gholipour 4

1 PHD student of Educational Administration, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Associate professor of Educational Administration, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

3 Professor of Educational Science, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

4 Professor of Public Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

One of the consequences of performance-based budgeting is the university's attention and focus on indicators and final results, or performance-oriented university.  In the last decade, the use of the performance-oriented university model has become widespread in the world. Since the use of this model for Iranian universities is on the agenda of policymaker, identifying the effects and consequences of implementing this model from the views of supporters and critics was the purpose of the present research. The research method was qualitative and a document review meta-analysis type. The study documents were selected from 788 related documents, all of which were in English, related to performance-based budgeting, and published in credible databases from 2010 to 2020. In the selection process, according to the strong thematic relationship and three indicators of title, abstract and content, 25 scientific documents were selected and the content validity of these documents was verified by the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool. In the selection  stage of analyzing the selected documents, the sub-components and open codes of these documents were extracted by qualitative content analysis method and then categorized and combined under the main components and dimensions of the research. To validate the findings, the method of comparing the opinions of researchers with experts was used, which Kappa agreement coefficient was 0.786. Findings in terms of the positive effects of implementing the model and from the point of view of the supporters included: increasing university competition, improving efficiency and growth of quantitative academic indicators, and improving responsibility, accountability, and university participation. Furthermore, critics believed that negative consequences were included: threatening university equality, reducing the effectiveness and threatening the quality indicators of the university, and threatening the nature, independence, academic freedom, and the emergence of university resistance.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher Education
  • performance-based university model
  • Qualitative meta-synthesis
  • Iran
1. Abedijafari, A., & Amiri, M. (2019). Meta-synthesis as a method for synthesizing qualitative researches. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 99(25), 73-87. doi:10.30471/mssh.2019.1629 ‎[in Persian].
2. Alshehri, Y.M. (2016). Performance-based funding: History, origins, outcomes, and obstacles. Journal of ‎Higher Education Theory and Practice, 16(4,31), 45-56. Retrieved from www.na-‎businesspress.com/JHETP/AlshehriYM_Web16_4_.pdf.
3. Azar, A., Amini, M., & Ahmadi, P. (2014). Applying fuzzy goal programming in university budgeting. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 20(2), 1-24. Retrieved from http://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article-1-2348-fa.html [in Persian].
4. Chatfield, D. (2017). The impact of performance-based funding models among Ohio`s Universities. Submitted to ‎the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Higher ‎Education the University of Toledo, 15-65. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=toledo1492017255713609‎.
5. ‎Dougherty, K.J., & Natow, R.S. (2019). Analyzing neoliberalism in theory and practice: The case of ‎performance-based funding for higher education. Centre for Global Higher Education. Retrieved from ‎https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-a1kt-7p96.
6. Dougherty, K.J. & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education ‎institutions: Research literature review and policy Recommendation. Columbia University. Community College Research Center.
7. Dougherty, K.J., & Natow, R.S. (2009). The demise of higher education performance funding systems in three ‎states. CCRC Brief-Community College Research Center, 50-55. Retrieved from ‎http://www.eric.ed.gov.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/PDFS/ED5.
8. Dougherty, K.J. Natow, R.S. Hare, R.J., & Vega, B.E. (2010). The political origins of state-level performance ‎funding for higher education: The cases of Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. ‎CCRC working paper (22).
9. Dougherty, K.J., Natow, R.S. Jones, S.M. Hare, R.J., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). The political origins of ‎performance funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee: Theoretical perspectives and comparisons with ‎performance funding 1.0. Columbia University. Community College Research Center. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/political-origns-performance-funding-‎‎2.0.pdf‎.
10. Dougherty, K., Jones, S., Lahr, H., Natow, R., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2016). Performance funding for higher ‎education (new book): New York. Retrieved from ‎https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/performance-funding-higher-education.
11. Dougherty, K.J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: ‎What are the ‎mechanisms? What are the impacts? San ‎Francisco, cA: Josseybass.‎: ASHE Higher Education report.
12. Dougherty, K.J., Jones, S.M., Lahr, H., Natow, R.S., Pheatt, L,. & Reddy, V. (2016). Looking inside the ‎black box of performance funding for higher education: Policy instruments, organizational obstacles, and ‎intended and unintended impacts. Higher Education Effectiveness, 147-173. Retrieved from ‎https://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.1.07‎.
13. Dougherty, K.J., Jones, S.M., Lahr, H., Natow, R.S., Pheatt, L., & ‎ Reddy, V. (2014). Envisioning performance funding impacts: The espoused theories of ‎action for state higher education ‎performance funding in three states. New York, Ny: ‎community college research center, teachers college. Retrieved from Available from ‎http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/PerformanceFunding.html.‎
14. Entezari, Y. (2010). Analysis of funding performance of public universities. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education,16(3),1-21. Retrieved from http://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article-1-931-fa.html [in Persian].
15. Entezari, Y. (2011). Presenting a model for public universities funding in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 81-fa.html [in Persian].
16. Kondori, F., Shami Zanjani, M., Manian, A., & Hasanzadeh, A. (2018). Presenting a framework for explaining the competencies of chief knowledge officer through meta-synthesis method. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 33(4), 1419-1450. Retrieved from http://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-3510-fa.html [in Persian].
17. Friedel, J.N., Thornton, Z.M., Amico, M.M.D., & Katsinas, S.G. (2013). Performance-based funding. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33). Retrieved from Retrieved [date], from‌ ‌http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/949‎.
18. Friedel, J.N., Thornton, Z.M., D’Amico, M., & Katsinas, S.G. (2013). Performance-based funding: ‎The national landscape. tuscaloosa, AL: university of ‎Alabama. Education Policy center, 55-62. Retrieved from Available ‎from ‎http://www.uaedpolicy.ua.edu/uploads/2/1/3/2/21326282/pbf_9-17_web.pdf.‎
19. Gholizadeh, M.H., & Kohanrooz, A. (2015). Operational budgeting requirements in Iran's higher education system. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 22(1), 39-59. Retrieved from http://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article-1-2569-fa.html [in Persian].
20. Harnisch, T. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing; ‎American association of state colleges and universities. A Higher Education Policy Brief, 44-65. Retrieved from Retrieved ‎http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/PolicyPublications/Performance_Funding_AASCU_June2011.pdf.
21. Hearn, J.C. (2015). Outcomes-based funding in historical and comparative context higher education financing (A higher education policy brief). Lumina Foundation for Education, 33-45. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561322.pdf.
22. Hillman, N.W., Tandberg, D.A., & Fryar, A.H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher ‎education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 501-519. doi:10.3102/0162373714560224‎.
23. Ignash, J. (2011). Performance-based funding. Higher Education Coordinating Board, 56-75. Retrieved from https://wsac.wa.gov/sites/default/files/SMP%20Performance%20Based%20Funding%20Brief.pd‎f.
24. Iranian Management & Planning Organization (2018). Establishment of a performance-based budgeting system in the general provincial administrations of the country. (F. Masjedi, & N. Torki, Eds.) Tehran: Iranian Management & planning organization [in Persian].
25. Jacobson, K.N. (2017). A qualitative study on the influence of quality systems in meeting performance funding ‎criteria in wisconsin technical college system institutions. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 1(1), 32-44. doi:10.9741/2578-2118.1005.‎
26. Johnson, N., & Yanagiura (2016). Early results of outcomes-based funding in tennessee. Lumina Foundation, 45-66. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/early-results-tn-0314-1.pdf.
27. Kordbache (2021). Report on the establishment of a performance-based budgeting system. Program and budget organization. Retrieved 10 15, 2021, from https://www.mporg.ir/Portal/View/Page.aspx?PageId=943ff038-1beb-45d9-bf0f-e2a271aab27b [in Persian].
28. Kvaal, J., & Bridgeland, J. (2018). Moneyball for higher education: how federal leaders can use data ‎and evidence to improve student outcomes. Results for America, 45-49. Retrieved from https://results4america.org/wp-‎content/uploads/2018/01/MB-for-Higher-Ed-Federal-Final.pdf.
29. Hana, L., Pheatt, L., Dougherty, K.J., Jones, S.M., Natow, R.S., & ‎ Reddy, V. (2014). ‎Unintended impacts of performance funding on community colleges ‎in three states. ‎columbia university. New york‎: community ‎college research center, teachers college.
30. Lena, A., Kulik, C., & Estermann, T. (2015). Define thematic report: Performance-based funding of universities in ‎Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association. Retrieved from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/380742‎.
31. Li AY, Kennedy AI. (2018). Performance funding policy effects on community college outcomes: Are short-term ‎certificates on the rise? Community College Review, 46(1), 3-39. doi:10.1177/0091552117743790‎.
32. Li, A. (2014). Performance funding in the states: An increasingly ubiquitous public policy for higher ‎education. Higher Education in Review, 43-65. Retrieved from http://sites.psu.edu/higheredinreview/wp-‎content/uploads/sites/36443/2016/02/Li-2014.pdf‎.
33. Mansourian Ravandi, F., Ganji, M., & Nikkhah Ghamsari, N. (2019). A qualitative meta-analysis on occupation status of graduates in Iran interdisciplinary studies in the humanities. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 1(12), 147-172. doi:10.22035/isih.2020.3466.3679 ‎[in Persian].
34. McKeown-Moak, M.P. (2013). The “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational ‎Considerations, ‎‎4. doi:htps://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.1082‎
35. Neary (2019). U.S. higher education performance-based funding policy diffusion and its association with state political ideologies and state budgeting taxonomies. lova: Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 17065. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/17065.
36. Nisar, M.A. (2015). Higher education governance and performance based funding as an. Higher Education, 69(2), 289-302. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9775-4‎.
37. Opoczynski, R. (2016). The creation of performance funding in Michigan: Partnership. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 45-49. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2488‎.
38. Ortagus, J.C., Kelchen, R., Rosinger, K., & Voorhees, N. (2020). Performance-based funding in American higher education: A systematic synthesis of the intended and unintended consequences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 520-550. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720953128.
39. Rabovsky, T.M. (2012). Accountability in higher education: Exploring impacts on state budgets and ‎institutional spending patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 675-700. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur069.‎
40. Rouhani, Sh., & Rashidi, Z. (2021). A framework for financial autonomy in universities applying Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) technique. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 117-152. Retrieved from http://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article-1-4389-fa.html [in Persian].
41. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: ‎Innovations and ‎clarifications. In Theories of the policy process. ‎Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research, 189-222‎.
42. Shaw, A.M. (2018). Public accountability versus academic independence: Tensions of public higher education ‎governance in Poland. Studies in Higher Education, 55-67. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1483910‎.
43. Shin, J.C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance. Higher Education, 60(1), 47-68. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9285-y.
44. Tandberg, D., & Hillman, N. (2013). State performance funding for higher education: Silver bullet or red herring? Wiscape Policy Brief, 55-65. Retrieved from ‎https://www.wiscape.wisc.edu/docs/WebDispenser/wiscapedocuments/pb018.pdf.
45. Wellings, P., Black, R., Craven, A.O.G., Freshwater, D., & Harding, S. (2019). Performance-based funding for ‎the commonwealth grant scheme. Report for the Minister for Education: Commonwealth of ‎Australia June.
46. Zhang, Q., Kang, N., & Barens, R. (2016). A systematic literature review of funding for higher education ‎institutions in developed countries. Front. Educ. China, 11(4), 519-542. doi:DOI 10. 3868/s110-005-016-0040-8.‎
47. Zumeta, W., & Li, A.Y. (2016). Assessing the underpinnings of performance funding 2.0: will this dog hunt? Tokyo: TIAA ‎INSTITUTE. Retrieved from https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/ files/ presentations/2017-‎‎02/ti_assessing_the_underpinnings_of _performance_ funding_2.pdf.
فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی
دوره 28، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 104
خرداد 1401
صفحه 231-262