طراحی الگوی ارزیابی اثربخشی تحقیقات دانشگاهی: یک مطالعه فراترکیب

نوع مقاله : مقاله مروری

نویسندگان

1 استاد اقتصاد آموزش، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد آموزش عالی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد بخش بیوفیزیک، مرکز تحقیقات بیوشیمی و بیوفیزیک دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

4 دانشیار مدیریت آموزش عالی، دانشگاه علوم و فنون هوایی شهید ستاری، تهران، ایران، و پسادکتری دانشگاه استکهلم سوئد

چکیده

هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر طراحی الگوی ارزیابی اثربخشی تحقیقات دانشگاهی بوده که برای تأمین آن از روش فراترکیب استفاده شده است. برای شناسایی ابعاد، ملاک­ها و نشانگرهای اثربخشی تحقیقات دانشگاهی، ابتدا کلید­­واژه­های منتخب در میان مهمترین نشریات و پایگاه­های اطلاعات علمی معتبر داخلی و خارجی جستجو و سپس تعداد 262 پژوهش مرتبط در این زمینه استخراج و با استفاده از ملاک­های معین، تعداد 30 اثر علمی مرتبط انتخاب شدند. در مرحله بعد، با روش تحلیل محتوا، مفاهیم مرتبط شناسایی و شماره‎گذاری شد و ملاک­ها و نشانگرهای مربوط به هر کدام از ابعاد اثربخشی، دسته­بندی و استخراج گردید. یافته­های کلیدی ذیل سه بُعد اساسی یعنی «ورودی‎ها، خروجی‎ها و اثربخشی (درونی و بیرونی)» تحقیقات دانشگاهی تدوین شدند. نتایج نشان داد که الگوی استخراج شده، زوایای متعدد تحقیقات دانشگاهی را بصورت یک‎پارچه پوشش می‎دهد و به نوعی منحصربفرد است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مراجع

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Pugini, F. (2008). The measurement of Italian universities’ research productivity by a non-parametric-bibliometric methodology. Scientometrics, 76(2), 225-244.
  2. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  3. Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-economic planning sciences, 35(1), 57-80.
  4. BabaAkbari Sari, A., Ghagremani, M., Fathivajargah, Kuroush., & Motmeni, A. (2017). Evaluating the outputs, effects and consequences of management research in 2013. Public Administration Perspective, 8(3), 41-65. {In Persian}
  5. Bandola-Gill, J. (2019). Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 46(6): 895-905.
  6. Banzi, R., Moja, L., Pistotti, V., Facchini, A &, Liberati, A. (2011). Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews. Health Res. Policy Syst., 9(1), 26-36.
  7. Bazargan, Abbas. (2018). Evaluation in higher education. Tehran: The Center for Studying and Compiling University Books in Humanities (SAMT). {In Persian}
  8. Chao, S. M., & Chen, M. J. (2023). DEA Approach to Evaluate Research Efficiency of Departments in University. Engineering Proceedings, 38(1), 71.
  9. Ding, T., Yang, J., Wu, H., Wen, Y., Tan, C., & Liang, L. (2021). Research performance evaluation of Chinese university: a non-homogeneous network DEA approach. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 6(4), 467-481.
  10. Ehsani, V., Azami, M., Najafi, S. M. B., & Soheili, F. (2017). The effectiveness of domestic Scientific research on Iran development Indicators. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 32(2), 319-347. doi: 10.35050/JIPM010.2017.044 {In Persian}
  11. Eslami, Z., Hakimzadeh, R., Saboury, A. A., & Farzad, V. (2021). Identifying effective factors in the assessment of research productivity of faculty members in the Humanities and Social Sciences (Case Study: University of Tehran). Journal of Management and Planning in Educational System, 13(2), 149-176. doi: 10.52547/mpes.13.2.149 {In Persian}
  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(1): 64-77.
  13. Farazkish, M., & Dastranj, N. (2019). Selecting and applying science, technology and innovation evaluation indices. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 579-598 {In Persian}
  14. Feizabadi, M., Fahimnia, F., Naghshineh, N., Tofighi, S., & Mosavi -Jarrahi, A. (2017). A review of impact assessment indicators of medical research. Health Information Management, 13(6), 432-437. {In Persian}
  15. Ghagremani, M., Fathivajargah, Kuroush., & Motmeni, A. (2017). Evaluating the outputs, effects and consequences of management research in 2013.Public Administration Perspective, 8(3), 41-65 {In Persian}
  16. Ghazinoory, S., & Farazkish, M. (2018). A modal for STI national evaluation based efficiency, effectiveness and utility index. Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 8(27), 205-229. {In Persian}
  17. Ghazinoory, S., Farazkish, M., Nasri, S., & Mardani, A. (2023). Designing a science, technology, and innovation (STI) evaluation dashboard: A comprehensive and multidimensional approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 35(8), 1005-1023.
  18. Ghomi, H. R., Rahmani, M., & Khakzar, M. (2017). Measuring the research performance of Iranian State University through utilizing Analytic Hierarchy Process and Network Data Envelopment Analysis. MILITARY MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY, 17(67), 141-167. {In Persian}
  19. Golhasany, H., Hosseini, T., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2021). Challenges to creating impact in humanities and social sciences in Iran: A Grounded Theory Analysis. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 7(2), 141-174. doi: 10.22091/stim.2020.5770.1415 {In Persian}
  20. Graham, K. E., Chorzempa, H. L., Valentine, P. A., & Magnan, J. (2012). Evaluating health research impact: Development and implementation of the Alberta Innovates–Health Solutions impact framework. Research Evaluation, 21(5), 354-367.
  21. Graham, I.D.; McCutcheon, C. & Kothari, A. (2019). Exploring the frontiers of research coproduction: The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network concept papers. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1): 88.
  22. Hinrichs-Krapels, S., & Grant, J. (2016). Exploring the effectiveness, efficiency and equity (3e’s) of research and research impact assessment. Palgrave Communications, 2(1), 1-9.
  23. Hu, Q., & He, W. (2011). Evaluation of scientific research efficiency of 985 program universities based on DEA. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 28(19), 135-139.
  24. Joly, P. B., Gaunand, A., Colinet, L., Larédo, P., Lemarié, S., & Matt, M. (2015). ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 440-453.
  25. Kashim, R., Kasim, M. M., & Rahman, R. A. (2017). Measuring effectiveness of a university by a parallel network DEA model. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1905, No. 1, p. 040014). AIP Publishing LLC.
  26. Khajevand, Z., Afshin., Z. (2016). Productivity measurement and ranking of research units using Data Envelopment Analysis. Basparesh, 5(4), 92-99. doi:10.22063/basparesh.2016.1228 {In Persian}
  27. Khosravi, M., & Pournaghi, R. (2019). Dimensions of research impact: A systematic review. Scientometrics Research Journal, 5(1, Spring & Summer), 203-224. doi: 10.22070/rsci.2018.695 {In Persian}
  28. Kuah, C. T., & Wong, K. Y. (2011). Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia computer science, 3, 499-506.
  29. Kuruvilla, S., Mays, N., Pleasant, A., & Walt, G. (2006). Describing the impact of health research: A research impact framework. BMC health services research, 6, 1-18.
  30. Li, Q. B., & Ren, Z. X. (2009). Empirical analysis on scientific research efficiency of Chinese provincial universities 2002–2006: Based on the DEA model. Journal of Shanxi University of Finance and Economics (Higher Education Edition), 1(001).
  31. Meng, W., Zhang, D., Qi, L., & Liu, W. (2008). Two-level DEA approaches in research evaluation. Omega 36(6): 950-957.
  32. Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 405-419.
  33. Naderi, Abolghasem. )2018). Advanced topics in economics of education: Internal efficiency and effectiveness. Tehran: University of Tehran. {In Persian}
  34. Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Bauman, A. E., Redman, S., Milat, A. J., Schroeder, J., Cohen, G., & Chapman, S. (2015). A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: Perceptions of Australian researchers. BMJ Open, 5(7), 1-14.
  35. Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Abdi, S. (2020). Challenges, issues and structural require elements for the implementation of the national system for evaluating the effectiveness of Science, Technology and Innovation. Rahyaft, 30(77), 89-106. doi: 10.22034/rahyaft.2020.13821 {In Persian}
  36. Pettigrew, A.M. (2011). Scholarship with impact. British Journal of Management, 22(3): 347-354.
  37. Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., & Primeri, E. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298-308.
  38. Rhaiem, M. (2017). Measurement and determinants of academic research efficiency: a systematic review of the evidence. Scientometrics, 110(2), 581-615.
  39. Roy, S., Nagpaul, P. S., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2003). Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of research units. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(12), 1514-1531.
  40. Sandelowski, M, and Barroso, J (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer: New York.
  41. Tayefehbagher, D., Abazari, Z., Moradi, S., & Babalhavaeji, F. (2022). A model for evaluating the impact of humanities research in Iran. Scientometrics Research Journal, 8(1, Spring & Summer), 1-34. doi: 10.22070/rsci.2020.13384.1450 {In Persian}
  42. Torkzadeh, J., Sadeghian Sourki, M., & Aghili, R. (2019). Continuing the patterns and framework for evaluation and audit of academic research: Conceptual approach. Public Policy in Administration, 10(1), 105-119. {In Persian}
  43. Glossary Terms. (2020). www.usq.edu.au/planstats/Docs/Glossary Terms.doc.579–598.
  44. Vosough, F., Ahmadi, G., Hassanmoradi, N., & Mohammaddavoodi, A. (2021). Identifying the native dimensions, components and indicators of research performance evaluation in university (A case study: Islamic Azad University in Tehran). Journal of Management and Planning in Educational System, 14(1), 13-42. doi: 10.52547/MPES.14.1.13 {In Persian}
  45. Weiss, Anthony P. "Measuring the impact of medical research: moving from outputs to outcomes." American Journal of Psychiatry 164, no. 2 (2007): 206-214.
  46. Williams, K. & Grant, J. (2018). A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. Research Evaluation, 27(2): 93-105.
  47. Williams, V. L., Eiseman, E., Landree, E., & Adamson, D. (2009). Demonstrating and communicating research impact: preparing NIOSH Programs for External Review. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
  48. Xu, J. (2009). An evaluation of relative input–output efficiency of research in higher education institutions in China: A data envelopment analysis (DEA). Tsinghua Journal of Education, 30(2), 76-80.
  49. Zhang, L., Bao, W., & Sun, L. (2016). Resources and research production in higher education: A longitudinal analysis of Chinese universities, 2000–2010. Research in Higher Education, 57(7), 869-891.
سیاستگذاری عمومی
دوره 9، شماره 4
اسفند 1402
صفحه 97-114

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار