نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

موسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی

10.61838/irphe.29.1.7

چکیده

آموزش عالی، برای دستیابی به هدف‌های راهبردی خود در جامعه، نیاز به تدابیر حکمرانی در جهتی پایدار دارد تا از رهگذرِ آن بتواند ماموریت خود را به درستی تعریف و ترسیم کند و با استواری به سوی آن گام بردارد. شناخت پژوهشی کشورهای پیشرو جهان در این زمینه می­تواند درس آموخته­های سیاستی در خورِ درنگ و گاه ارزشمندی برای نظام آموزشی دیگر کشورها، به ویژه نظام آموزش­عالی ما، که از تداوم رویّه‌های سنّتی ناکارآمد و پرهیز از شیوه­های حکمرانی آموزش­عالی روزآمد رنجه است، دربرداشته باشد. در مقالۀ حاضر، با کاربستِ روش پژوهش تحلیلِ اسناد و بهره‌گیری از روش نمونه­گیری هدفمند، به شناسایی و تحلیل کیفی تجارب حکمرانی خوب در آموزش عالی سه کشور منتخب- شامل آلمان، انگلستان و کانادا- در ابعادِ چهارگانۀ تدبیرِ امورِ کیفیت، تدبیرِ استقلال دانشگاهی، تدبیرِ امور مالی و تدبیرِ مدیریت دانشگاهی پرداخته شده است. گردآوری داده­ها با جستجو در مندرجات وب‌گاه­ دانشگاه ها، مقالات،
گزارش­ها و اسنادِ دولتی و دانشگاهی انتشار یافته صورت پذیرفت و در دو سطحِ کُدگذاری باز و محوری تحلیل کیفی شد. از مطالعه و تحلیل‌های تجاربِ حکمرانی خوب در آموزش­عالی کشورهای منتخب، در بُعد تدبیر امور کیفیت، شاملِ ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت در بسترِ چارچوب­های مورد توافق، آمایش چندگانۀ نظام ارزیابی، اعتبارسنجی و تضمینِ کیفیت، شفافیت و پاسخگویی و بهبود به عنوان منطق ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت آموزش­عالی شناسایی شدند. در بُعد تدبیر استقلال دانشگاهی، تجاربی از جمله: آزادی آکادمیک با محوریتِ خودگرانی دانشگاهی و تعاملِ تسهیل‌گرایانه در ارتباط حکمرانی درون و برون دانشگاهی شناسایی شدند. مدیریت و برنامه ریزی همیارانۀ نظام‌مند، و مدیریت شبکه‌ای مبتنی بر مرجعیت علمی تجاربی بودند که در بُعد مدیریت و برنامه ریزی دانشگاهی بازنمایی شدند. افزون بر آن ،در بُعد تدبیرِ امور مالی، تجاربی همچون بودجه‌ریزی اقتضاییِ استوار بر شاخصه­ های علمی، و تنوّع پذیری حمایتی در تأمین منابع مالی شناسایی گردیدند. مقاله، در پایان، با مهم برشمردن یافته‌های به دست آمده از پژوهش خود در تجارب نظام‌های حکمرانی/سکانداری کشورهای منتخب، مطالعه و بررسی آنها را به‌عنوانِ درس آموخته­هایی قابل درنگ برای آگاهی و بسترسازی سنجیده به منظورِ بهره‌گیری اثربخش از آنها، در چارچوب برنامه‌های اقدام متناسب وروزامد در زمینۀ حکمرانی/سکانداری آموزش عالی، به همۀ سیاستگذاران و مسئولان آموزش­عالی کشور توصیه‌کرده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Study on the Experiences of Higher Education Good Governance in European and North America Countries; Some Lessons Gained for Higher Education in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Davood Hatami
  • Hamed Kamali
  • AhmadReza Roshan

IRPHE

چکیده [English]

Higher education, in order to achieve its strategic goals in society, requires governance understanding in a sustainable trend so that it can correctly define and outline its mission and step towards it firmly.
 Research knowledge and experiences of the advanced countries in this field may certainly contain some considerable and –sometimes - valuable lessons gained in policies for higher education systems in other countries, especially for Iranian higher education system suffering from some ineffective traditional procedures and avoiding up-to-date governance methods. In this article, by applying the research method of document analysis and using the purposeful sampling method, the identification and qualitative analysis of good governance experiences in higher education of three selected countries - including Germany, England and Canada - has been addressed in the four measures of quality affairs, academic independence and financial management. Data gatherings were done by searching contents of universities’ websites, published articles, essays, reports, governmental and academic manuscripts. Data was qualitatively analyzed at two levels of open and axial coding. From the study and analysis of the experiences of good governance in higher education of selected countries, in the dimension of quality measures, including evaluation and quality assurance in the context of agreed frameworks, multiple use of the evaluation system, validation and quality assurance, transparency and accountability, and improvement were identified as the logic of evaluation and quality assurance of higher education. Systematic synergetic management and planning, and network management based on scientific reference were experiences that were represented in the dimension of university management and planning. Morover, in the financial planning measures, experiences such as contingency budgeting based on scientific indicators, and diversity of support in providing financial resources were identified. In the end, the article, by enumerating the findings obtained from its research in the experiences of the governance of the selected countries, has recommended to all the policy makers and officials of the country's higher education to study and review them as lessons that can be learned for awareness and to create a well-considered platform in order to use them effectively, in the framework of appropriate and updated action plans in the field of governance of higher education.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher education
  • higher education governance
  • good governance
  • good governance in higher education of North American countries
  • policy of university quality
  • policy of university autonomy
  • policy of university funding
  • management and planning in higher education
  1. Abdul Hosseinzadeh, M. (2016). Identification of the components and indicators of governance of scientific cores in universities. The first national conference on governance and public policy. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology [in Persian].
  2. Bagheri Moghadam, N., & Ahmadi, H. (2017). Governance Pathology in Iran's Higher Education System, Public Policy, 4(4), 55-74 [in Persian].
  3. Bazarafshan, M., Noorshahi, N., & Pourshafei, M. (2005). Examining the attitude of university administrators towards university planning in Iran. The first national conference on governance and public policy. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology [in Persian].
  4. Brussels: EUA. Eurydice (2008). National summary sheets on education system in Europe and ongoing reforms. United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Brussels: European Commission.
  5. Chun, Y. (2014). Uncertainty of autonomy effects in agencitification: The case of Seoul National University. Journal of Public Administration Discourse (hangjung nunchong), 52(4), 79–109 (in Korean).
  6. CICIC (Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials) (2010b). Quality Assurance Practices for Postsecondary Institutions in Canada. Fact Sheet No 5. In: http://www.cicic.ca/510/fact-sheet-no-5. canada [accessed 31 August 2011].
  7. El-Khawas, E. (2007). Accreditation of Tertiary Education in the United States and Canada. In: GUNI (Eds.): Higher Education in the World, 2007. Accreditation for Quality Assurance: What is at Stake? Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 165-278. (GUNI Series on the social commitment of universities, Vol. 2).
  8. Farasatkhah, M., & Maniei, R. (2013). Effective factors on the participation of faculty members in higher education policy-making and university planning. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 20(4) [in Persian].
  9. Hartwig, L. (2004). National Report of Germany for the OECD/IMHE-HEFCE project on financial management and governance of higher education institutions. München: Bayrisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung. Vol. 69.
  10. Hartwig, L. (2006). Funding Systems and Their Effects on Higher Education Systems. Country Study – Germany. Munich: OECD.
  11. Hassanzadeh Barani Kord, S. (2016) Student: the undisputed ruler of higher education. The first national conference on governance and public policy. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology [in Persian].
  12. HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2010). Independent Review Group review of the effectiveness and efficiency of HEFCE. Final Report. Issue Paper March, No. 7. Manchester: HEFCE.
  13. Hénard, F., & Mitterle, A. (2010). Governance and quality guidelines in Higher Education. A review of governance arrangements and quality assurance. Berlim: OECD.
  14. Jahid, H. A., & Nayini, M. K. (2016). Criticism of the governance of universities from the perspective of creating challenges in academic independence since the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the first conference on governance and public policy, Tehran, Iran [in Persian].
  15. Jung, J., & Shin, J. C. (2015). Administrative staff members’ job competency and their job satisfaction in a Korean research university. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 881–901.
  16. Kaplin, W. A., Lee, B. A., Hutchens, N. H., & Rooksby, J. H. (2020). The law of higher education, student version. John Wiley & Sons.
  17. Leisyte, L. (2007). Higher education in the United Kingdom. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
  18. Ligotne, A. (2013). The comparative analysis of higher education governance indicators and its effectiveness in European countries. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 493.
  19. Neave, G., & Van Vught, F. (1994). Government and higher education in developing nations: A conceptual framework. In Neave, G. & Vught, F. (Eds.). Government and higher education relationships across three continents: The wind of change (PP. 1-21). Paris, France: International Association of Universities Press 44.
  20. QAA (2000b). Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education. Section 7: Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Gloucester.
  21. QAA (2004). Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education. Section 1: Collaborative Provision and Flexible and Distributed Learning (including e-learning). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Gloucester.
  22. Rajaee, A. (2016). Study of the governance of the education sector from the perspective of its communication system in different countries of the world. The first national conference on governance and public policy. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology [in Persian].
  23. Reily, J., & Jongsma, A. (2010). Changing rules: Review of tempus support to university governance, European Commission, TEMPUS.
  24. Rhee, B. S. (2007). Incorporation of National Universities in Korea: Dynamic forces, key features, and challenges. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3), 341–357.
  25. Roshan, A. R. (2017). Designing a model of good governance for the Ministry of Science based on the school of institutionalism. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran [in Persian].
  26. Roshan, A. R., & Motevaseli, M. (2018). Good governance-based circular stakeholder model for improving the quality of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 12(41), 49-71 [in Persian].
  27. Shin, J. (2014). The university as an institution of higher learning: Evolution or devolution? In J. Shin & U. Teichler (Eds.). The future of the post-massified university at the crossroads: Restructuring systems and functions. Berlin: Springer.
  28. Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) Hamalainen. Kauko, etal. (2003). Common Standards for Programme.www.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/full (accessed:5/12/2010).
  29. Torughi, J. (2016). The role of research university in improving the governance and policy making of higher education and presenting the system model of research university. The first national conference on governance and public policy. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology [in Persian].
  30. Yemani Dozi Sorkhabi, M. (1388). Reviewing the state of development planning of public universities in Iran. Iranian Higher Education Journal, first year, fourth issue, 1-19 [in Persian].
  31. Zakir Salehi, Gh. R. (2014). Iranian university and identity-functional conflict: in search of a lost model". Higher education philosophy conference. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University [in Persian].