ارزیابی سیاست‌های خصوصی سازی آموزش عالی دولتی؛ مطالعه موردی آموزش عالی ایران

نویسندگان
سید اسماعیل موسوی 1
ذکیا عباسی 2
لیلا ایزدی 3
مریم قاسمی 4
رحیم صفری 5
1 استادیار، گروه مطالعات مدیریت آموزش عالی، مؤسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی، تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار، گروه روان شناسی آموزشی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران.
3 دکتری مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
4 استادیار، گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
5 عضو هیات علمی وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری، تهران، ایران.
10.61838/KMAN.IRPHE.31.1.5
چکیده
این مقاله با تمرکز بر تأسیس و گسترش پردیس‌های خودگردان دانشگاهی به عنوان ابزاری برای سیاستگذاری، به ارزیابی سیاست‌های خصوصی‌سازی آموزش عالی دولتی در ایران می‌پردازد. در این پژوهش با استفاده از روش تحقیق کیفی مبتنی بر فرآیند، طراحی و اجرای این سیاست بر اساس مدل چرخه‌ی سیاست و نظریه بازخورد سیاستی تحلیل شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند که سیاست تأسیس پردیس‌های خودگردان در دستیابی به اهداف اولیه‌ی خود، شامل بین‌المللی­ کردن آموزش عالی، گسترش دسترسی و افزایش پذیرش دانشجو برای پاسخگویی به نیازهای اجتماعی و علمی در حد انتظار موفق نبوده­ است. در این پژوهش تأثیرات منابعی، تفسیری و نهادی این سیاست و نیز سازوکارهای بازخورد اجتماعی-سیاسی، مالی و اجرایی آن بررسی شد. از تأثیرات منابعی، تفسیری و نهادی می ­توان به ترویج منطق بازار در دانشگاه‌های دولتی، تشویق دانشگاه‌ها به یافتن منابع مالی جدید و ایجاد تناقضات در سیاستگذاری و اجرای خصوصی ­سازی آموزش عالی نام برد. سازوکارهای بازخورد اجتماعی-سیاسی بر انحراف پردیس‌ها از مأموریت اصلی‌شان، بازخورد مالی بر نیاز دانشگاه‌ها به منابع مالی متنوع و بازخورد اداری بر نبود نظارت مناسب بر این پردیس‌ها اشاره می‌کند. نتایج نشان داد در حالی که خصوصی‌سازی آموزش عالی دولتی از طریق پردیس‌های خودگردان برخی تأثیرات مثبت مانند تنوع‌بخشی به منابع مالی دانشگاه‌ها را در پی داشته ­است، اما به نگرانی‌هایی درباره عدالت و کیفیت آموزشی منجر شده ­است. پیشنهاد می‌شود که سیاست‌های آتی خصوصی‌سازی آموزش عالی با دقت طراحی و اجرا شوند و نظارت مناسب برای ایجاد تعادل میان پایداری مالی و حفظ استانداردهای آموزشی صورت گیرد و در تدوین سیاست‌های خصوصی‌سازی در آموزش عالی دولتی، دسترسی برابر به آموزش عالی برای تمام طبقات اجتماعی تضمین شود. بر اساس یافته‌ها، سه سناریو برای آینده‌ی پردیس‌های خودگردان پیشنهاد می‌شود: حفظ وضعیت موجود، ادغام در دانشگاه‌های مادر یا تغییر جهت به سمت مأموریت‌های خاص.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Evaluation of Privatization Policies in Public Higher Education: A Case Study of Iranian Higher Education

نویسندگان English

Seyedesmaeil Mousavi 1
Zakiya Abbasi 2
Leila Izadi 3
Maryam Ghasemi 4
Rahimُ Safari 5
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Higher Education Studies, Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, School of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Ph.D. in Information Technology Management, Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Technology, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
5 Faculty Member of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

This article, focusing on establishing and expanding autonomous university campuses as a policy tool, evaluates the privatization policies of public higher education in Iran. This study, using a qualitative, process-based research method,  analyzes the design and implementation of this policy based on the policy cycle model and policy feedback theory. The findings reveal that the policy of establishing autonomous campuses has not been as successful as expected in achieving its primary objectives, including the internationalization of higher education, expanding access, and increasing student enrollment to meet social and scientific needs. This research examines the resource, interpretive, and institutional impacts of this policy and its socio-political, financial, and executive feedback mechanisms. The resource, interpretive, and institutional impacts include promoting market logic in public universities, encouraging universities to find new financial resources, and creating contradictions in the policy-making and implementation of higher education privatization. The socio-political feedback mechanism focuses on the deviation of campuses from their primary mission, the financial feedback mechanism highlights universities' need for diverse financial resources, and the administrative feedback mechanism points to the lack of adequate oversight of these campuses. The article concludes that while the privatization of public higher education through autonomous campuses has had some positive effects, such as diversifying university financial resources, it has also led to concerns about equity and quality of education. This research suggests that future privatization policies in higher education should be carefully designed and implemented, with adequate oversight, to balance financial sustainability and the maintenance of educational standards. Furthermore, in developing privatization policies in public higher education, all social classes should be guaranteed equal access to higher education. Based on the findings, three scenarios are proposed for the future of autonomous campuses: maintaining the status quo, merging with parent universities, or shifting towards specific missions.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Privatization of higher education
Article 30 of the Constitution Law
Autonomous university campus of a public university
Policy evaluation
Agasisti, T., & Ricca, L. (2016). Comparing the Efficiency of Italian Public and Private Universities (2007-2011): An Empirical Analysis. Italian Economic Journal, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-015-0022-7
Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., Rumbley, L., & Unesco. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004406155
Amanatidou, E., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Garefi, I. (2014). Using Evaluation Research as a Means for Policy Analysis in a 'New' Mission-Oriented Policy Context. Minerva, 52(4), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9258-x
Assaad, R., Krafft, C., & Salehi-Isfahani, D. (2018). Does the Type of Higher Education Affect Labor Market Outcomes? Evidence from Egypt and Jordan. Higher Education, 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0179-0
Barley, S. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 220-247. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.220
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E., & Zaim, S. (2013). Measuring the relative efficiency of quality management practices in Turkish public and private universities. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(12), 1810-1830. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.2
Béland, D. (2010). Reconsidering policy feedback: How policies affect politics. Administration and Society, 42(5), 568-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710377444
Béland, D., & Schlager, E. (2019). Varieties of Policy Feedback Research: Looking Backward, Moving Forward. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12340
Borrás, S., & Højlund, S. (2015). Evaluation and policy learning: The learners' perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12076
Buckner, E. (2018). The growth of private higher education in North Africa: a comparative analysis of Morocco and Tunisia. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1295-1306. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1250075
Cairney, P. (2012). What is Public Policy? How Should We Study It? In Understanding Public Policy (pp. 22-45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3_2
Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). Comparing Theoretical Approaches. In rd (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press. https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/heikkila-cairney-proof-24-4-17.pdf
Chermack, T. J. (2018). An analysis and categorization of scenario planning scholarship from 1995-2016. Journal of Futures Studies, 22(4), 45-60. https://jfsdigital.org/articles-and-essays/2018-2/vol-22-no-4-june-2018/an-analysis-and-categorization-of-scenario-planning-scholarship-from-1995-2016/
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. (2018). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Academy of Management journal, 61(5), 1920-1950. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0687
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research. Sage Publications. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-06349-000
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
Dunn, W. N. (2020). Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Sumerianz Journal of Social Science, 310, 130-131. https://doi.org/10.47752/sjss.310.130.131
Edler, J., Gök, A., Cunningham, P., & Shapira, P. (2016). Introduction: Making sense of innovation policy. In Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact (pp. 1-17). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711856.00008
Edmondson, D. L., Kern, F., & Rogge, K. S. (2019). The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 48(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.010
Foxon, T. J. (2011). A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecological Economics, 70(12), 2258-2267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.014
Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. John Wiley & Sons. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259999058_Purposeful_Program_Theory_Effective_Use_of_Theories_of_Change_and_Logic_Models
Garwe, E. C. (2016). Increase in the demand for private higher education: unmasking the 'paradox'. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), 232-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2014-0064
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022
Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. J. (2016). Impact Evaluation in Practice, Second Edition. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0779-4
Gholami, M. (2017). The Paid Campuses of the Universities Are Gradually Adjusted. In.
Ghoraishi khorasgani, M., Yamani, M., Zakersalehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2017). A Content Analysis of Articles in Privatization of Higher Education in Iran Scientific Journals. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 10(3), 44-54. https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_12987.html?lang=en
Ghoraishi khorasgani, M. s., Yamani, M., Zakersalehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2016). Analysis of the Studies Conducted in Higher Education Privatization. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(1), 77-90. https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_12949.html?lang=en
Ghoraishi, M., Yamani Douzi sorkhabi, M., Zaker salehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2018). Structural pathology of autonomous campus of Tehran governmental universities. Journal of Management and Planning In Educational System, 11(1), 31-58. https://mpes.sbu.ac.ir/article_98456.html?lang=en
Ghoraishikhorasgani Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M., Zakersalehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2019). Functional pathology of autonomous campuses of Tehran public universities. Journal of Educational Sciences, 26(1), 197-216. https://education.scu.ac.ir/article_14734.html?lang=en
Ghoraishikhorasgani Yamani Dozi Sorkhabi, M., Zakersalehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2019). Environmental Pathology of Autonomous Campuses and Its Outcomes. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 14(4), 165-192. https://jontoe.alzahra.ac.ir/article_3782.html?lang=en
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2019). Policy Feedback in an Age of Polarization. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 685(1), 8-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219871222
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
Heller, D. E., & Callender, C. (2013). Student Financing of Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203589953
Herrmann, S., & Nagel, C. (2022). Early Careers of Graduates from Private and Public Universities in Germany: A Comparison of Income Differences Regarding the First Employment. Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09698-4
Hoppmann, J., Huenteler, J., & Girod, B. (2014). Compulsive policy-making - The evolution of the German feed-in tariff system for solar photovoltaic power. Research Policy, 43(8), 1422-1441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.014
Howlett, M., & Giest, S. (2012). The Policy-Making Process. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 17-28). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203097571-3/policy-making-process-michael-howlett-sarah-giest
Huang, F., Daizen, T., Chen, L., & Horiuchi, K. (2022). Japan's higher education and the public good. Higher Education, 83(6), 1297-1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00743-2
Hunt, S. A., & Boliver, V. (2021). Private providers and market exit in UK higher education. Higher Education, 81(2), 385-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00546-x
Institute for Research Planning in Higher Education. (2024). Statistics of Higher Education in Iran. In.
Jacobs, A. M., & Weaver, R. K. (2010). Policy Feedback and Policy Change. Forthcoming, 45(4), 595-628.
Jacobs, L. R., & Mettler, S. (2018). When and How New Policy Creates New Politics: Examining the Feedback Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Public Opinion. Perspectives on Politics, 16(2), 345-363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717004182
Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.006
Janssen, M. J. (2019). What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 78-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.011
Jordan, A., & Matt, E. (2014). Designing policies that intentionally stick: Policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9201-x
Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787-801. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty032
Kern, F., & Rogge, K. S. (2018). Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 102-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001
Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and Grand Challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy011
Kwiek, M. (2017). De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach. Higher Education, 74(2), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0047-3
Lahmandi-Ayed, R., Lasram, H., & Laussel, D. (2021). Is partial privatization of universities a solution for higher education? Journal of Public Economic Theory, 23(6), 1174-1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12531
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007079965
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management journal, 56(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
Levy, D. C. (2013). The decline of private higher education. Higher Education Policy, 26(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.26
Lindlof, T. R. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage Publications. https://books.google.com/books/about/Qualitative_Communication_Research_Metho.html?id=M4tEdO6LaIwC
Marginson, S. (2018). Public/private in higher education: a synthesis of economic and political approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 43(2), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1168797
Markard, J., Suter, M., & Ingold, K. (2016). Socio-Technical Transitions and Policy Change - Advocacy Coalitions in Swiss Energy Policy. SSRN Electronic Journal, 18, 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.003
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034
Mettler, S., & Sorelle, M. (2018). Policy Feedback Theory. In Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 103-134). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-4
Oberlander, J., & Weaver, R. K. (2015). Unraveling from within? The affordable care act and self-undermining policy feedbacks. Forum (Germany), 13(1), 37-62. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2015-0010
Ossenbrink, J., Finnsson, S., Bening, C. R., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2019). Delineating policy mixes: Contrasting top-down and bottom-up approaches to the case of energy-storage policy in California. Research Policy, 48(10), 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.014
Patashnik, E. M., & Jenkins, J. A. (2013). The struggle to remake politics: Liberal reform and the limits of policy feedback in the contemporary american state. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1071-1087. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592713002831
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917-940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610373200
Perera, K. (2021). Narratives of privatization: three stories of affect and position from public universities. Journal of Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2021.1945088
Pierson, P. (1993). When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change. World Politics, 45(4), 595-628. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950710
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620-1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004
Saeidi. (2024). Statistics of Higher Education in Iran. In. Tehran, Iran: Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (IRPHE).
Sanyal, B. C., & Johnstone, D. B. (2011). International trends in the public and private financing of higher education. Prospects, 41(1), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9180-z
Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, Pressures and the Tariff. Prentice Hall. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ncr.4110241214
Schoemaker, P. (2014). Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking. Sloan Management Review. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220042263
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Thornton, M. (2012). Privatising the Public University: The Case of Law. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203804537
Tian, L., & Liu, N. C. (2019). Rethinking higher education in China as a common good. Higher Education, 77(4), 623-640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0295-5
van der Laak, W. W. M., Raven, R. P. J. M., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2007). Strategic niche management for biofuels: Analysing past experiments for developing new biofuel policies. Energy Policy, 35(6), 3213-3225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.11.009
Yamani, M., Zakersalehi, G., & Mehran, G. (2016). Science & Technology Policy Analysis of the Studies Conducted in Higher Education Privatization. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 8(1).
Zając, T., Jasiński, M., & Bożykowski, M. (2018). Early careers of tertiary graduates in Poland: Employability, earnings, and differences between public and private higher education. Polish Sociological Review, 202, 187-208. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-022-09698-4
Zakersalehi, G. (2016). Privatization of Higher Education in the Fourth and Fifth Development Plans. Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257085097
Zakersalehi, G. (2022). Non-public & non-profit higher education institutions - Volume 3 of the Higher Education Law Book Series. Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education.
 

  • تاریخ دریافت 04 آبان 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری 24 شهریور 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 26 شهریور 1403
  • تاریخ انتشار 25 اسفند 1403