مدل تجزیه و تحلیل خط ‌مشی‌های آموزشی و پژوهشی دانشگاه علوم پزشگی گرگان

محورهای موضوعی : خطمشی‌گذاری عمومی در مدیریت

مریم عرب حسن خانی ¹ , علیرضا معطوفی ^{2 *} , علی فرهادی محلی ³ , مجتبی طبری ⁴

1 - دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت دولتی گرایش تصمیم گیری وخط مشی گذاری عمومی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان،ایران.
2 - دانشیار گروه مدیریت، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاداسلامی ،گرگان، ایران.(
3 - استادیار گروه مدیریت، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران.
4 - دانشیار گروه مدیریت، واحد قائمشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قائمشهر،ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/12/28 تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/02/08 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/07/01

کلید واژه: تجزیه و تحلیل خط مشی - تجزیه و تحلیل خط ‌مشی‌های آموزشی و پژوهشی, دانشگاه علوم پزشکی,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه: اموزش و پژوهش از زیربنایی ترین ساخت‌های هر جامعه‌ای می‌باشد. در صورت عدم توجه به سیاست‌های این حوزه اثار آن می‌تواند بر توسعه، اقتصادی، اجتماعی، فرهنگی و ... نمودار باشد. هدف: هدف از انجام پژوهش حاضر، طراحی مدل تجزیه و تحلیل خط‌‌مشی‌های آموزشی و پژوهشی دانشگاه علوم پزشگی گرگان می باشد. روش: پژوهش از حیث ماهیت استقرایی و از حیث روش، کیفی می باشد. جامعه آماری پژوهش خبرگان و خط مشی گذاران دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و اساتید دانشگاهی می باشند که به روش نمونه گیری هدفمند با استفاده از تکنیک گلوله برفی، تعداد 20 نفر با در نظرگرفتن اشباع نظری انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده ها، مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته بود. یافته ها: رویکرد مورد استفاده در پژوهش حاضر، تکنیک داده بنیاد می باشد که پس از انجام مراحل سه گانه کد گذاری باز، محوری و گزینشی مدل اولیه ارائه گردید. درنهایت مدل نهایی پژوهش در 6 بعد طراحی گردید. نتیجه گیری: طبق نتایج حاصله عوامل علی شامل: (ساختار مثبت گرا، ارتباطات اثربخش، مدیریت مشارکتی، ویژگی های رفتاری، نظام مدیریت منابع انسانی، فرآیندهای اداری صحیح)، مقوله محوری (تجزیه و تحلیل خط‌مشی آموزشی و پژوهشی)، راهبرد (بهره برداری از الگوهای سازمان پیشرو و موفق استقرار سازو کارهای نظام آموزش و پژوهش منطبق با هریک از اقدامات نظام فردی و سازمانی آموزش و ترویج نمونه‌های موفق آموزش و پژوهش)، عوامل بسترساز (خود ارزیابی، جو سازمانی مثبت، یادگیری مشارکتی)، عوامل مداخله گر (مدیریت ناکارآمد، فشار سیاسی) و پیامدها (در دوبخش پیامدهای رفتاری و سازمانی) بدست آمدند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background: Education and research is one of the most basic structures of any society. If you do not pay attention to the policies in this area, its effects can be on development, economic, social, cultural, etc. Objective: The purpose of this study is to design a model for analyzing the line of educational and research policies of Gorgan University of Medical Sciences. Method: The research is inductive in nature and qualitative in terms of method. The statistical population of the study is experts and policy makers of the University of Medical Sciences and university professors. By purposive sampling using snowball technique, 20 people were selected by considering theoretical saturation. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview. Results: The approach used in the present study is the foundation data technique which was presented after performing the three steps of open, axial and selective coding of the initial model. Finally, the final research model was designed in 6 dimensions. Conclusion: According to the results, causal factors include: (positive structure, effective communication, participatory management, behavioral characteristics, human resource management system, correct administrative processes), central category (educational and research policy analysis), strategy (Utilizing the models of a leading and successful organization, establishing the mechanisms of the education and research system in accordance with each of the measures of the individual and organizational system of education and promoting successful examples of education and research), bedrock factors (self-assessment, positive organizational climate, participatory learning), Interventional factors (inefficient management, political pressure) and consequences (in both behavioral and organizational consequences) were obtained. 

منابع و مأخذ:

 

1. Aguinis, H. (2015). Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.


2. Akerman, J., Gudmundsson, H., Hedegaard Sørensen, C., Isaksson, K., Olsen, S., Kessler, F., & Macmillan, J. (2017). How to manage barriers to formation and implemenation of policy pakages in transport, s.l.: Optic. Optimal policies for Transport in Combination.


3. Alkin, M. C., Christie, C. A. (2012). An Evaluation Theory Tree. In M.Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots، A Wider Perspective of Theorists' Views and Influences(pp. 11-58). Thousand Oaks:SAGE.


4. Alwani, S.M., Sharifzadeh, F. (1394). Public Policy Making Process (13th Edition), Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press.


5. Ardichvili, A., Zavyalova , E., & Minina, V. (2012). Human capital development: comparative analysis of BRICs. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(2/3), 213-233.


6. Arman, M. Khosravi, M. (1392). Validation of Human Resources Training Model with Competency Approach, Management Studies (Improvement and Transformation), 22 (71): 49-73.


7. Armstrong, M. (2001). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Kogan Page: London.


8. Asadifard, R., Fani, A.A., Azar, A., Alwani, S.M. (1395). Model of public policy analysis in Iran, Quarterly Journal of Public Management, 8 (2): 255-276.


9. Atafar, A., Ansari, M.A., Talebi, H., Nilipour Tabatabai, S.A. (1388). Vision Document 1404, Law of the Fourth Development Plan and Fundamental Changes Required by Universities, Quarterly Journal of the Iranian Higher Education Association, First Year, No. 4, Spring, 21-65.


10. Barrett, P. (2011). The Use of Sensory and Analytical Evaluation to Match the Flavor of Onion Powder in a White sauce. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.


11. Batra, S. (2009). Strengthening human capital for knowledge economy needs: an Indian perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 345-58.


12. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, P. T., Rothstein, H. R. (2009) . Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.


13. Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2005). The Success Case Method، a strategic evaluation approach to increasing the value and effect of training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 86 101.


14. Cascio, W, F. (2017). Training trends: Macro, micro, and policy issues, Human Resource Management Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.11.001


15. Cousins, J. B. (1996). Consequences of researcher involvement in participatory evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 3–27.


16. De Vos, Ans., De Hauw, S. & Willemase. (2011). Competency development in organizations: Building an integrative model through a qualitative study. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Retrieved from: http://econpapers.repec. org/paper/nerleuven/urn_3ahdl_3a123456789_2f325227.htm.


17. Fathurrochman, I., Danim, S., Anwar, A. S., & Kurniah, N. (2021, March). The School Principals’ Role in Education Management at the Regional Level: An Analysis of Educational Policy in the Industrial Revolution 4.0. In International Conference on Educational Sciences and Teacher Profession (ICETeP 2020) (pp. 237-242). Atlantis Press.


18. Funnell, S. C., Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful Program Theory، Effective Use of Theories Of Change And Logic Models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


19. Hajatpour, S., Daneshfard, K., Amirnejad, Q., Taban, M. (1396). Provide a model for evaluating public policies (after implementation) with a network governance approach (Case study: Social Security Organization). General Management in Management, 8 (4): 3-25.


20. Hendry, C., & Pettigrew, A. (1990). Human resource management: an agenda for the 1990s. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(1), 17-43.


21. Lee, J., & Hsin, P. (2004). Employee training and human capital in Taiwan. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 362-76.


22. McKenney, S., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). Roles and competencies of educational design researchers: One framework and seven guidelines. Learning, design, and technology, 41, 1-26.


23. Mctigue, C., Monios, J., Rye, T. (2018). Identifying barriers to implementation of local transport policy: An analysis of bus policy in Great Britain, Utilities Policy, 50(2): 133-143.


24. Mishra, S., Kumar, S, P. (2019). E-recruitment and training comprehensiveness: untapped antecedents of employer branding, Industrial and Commercial Training, https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2017-0106


25. Pallangyo, W., & Rees, C. (2010). Local government reform programs and human resource capacity building in Africa: evidence from local government authorities (LGAs) in Tanzania. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(12/13), 728-39.


26. Pallangyo, W., & Rees, C. (2010). Local government reform programs and human resource capacity building in Africa: evidence from local government authorities (LGAs) in Tanzania. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(12/13), 728-39.


27. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Utilization-Focused Evaluation.In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 429–432). Thousand Oaks: SAGE


28. Poor Abedi, M.R., Zarabi, W., Sajjadi Naeini, H., Razi, Z. (1395). Designing a Multidimensional Competency Model for Managers and Employees, Quarterly Journal of Human Resources Management Research, Imam Hossein University, 8th year, No. 12, 24 consecutive, Summer, 27-52.


29. Pryadilnikov, M. (2016). Public policy training and development of MPA/MPP programs in the Russian Federation, Policy and Society, 35(4): 371-383


30. Rangriz, H., Moazani, b. (۱۳۹۶). Identifying and Prioritizing Barriers to Public Policy Implementation in Governmental Organizations Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models, Quarterly Journal of General Policy Making in Management, Year 8, 28 (4): 26-43.


31. Rao, T. (2007). Is it time to replace HRD managers by knowledge and learning managers. Retrieved from http//indiamba.cm/Faculty Column/FC525/fc525.html


32. Ruh Elahi, A.A., Rajabi Farjad, H. (۱۳۹۴). Investigating the Effects of Management Policies on Organizational Performance, Quarterly Journal of Human Resources Management Research, Imam Hossein University (AS); Seventh year, 3 (3): 105-130.


33. Runhaar, H. (2006). Policy analysis for sustainable development the toolbox for the environmental social scientist. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(1): 34-56.


34. Schofield, J. (2004). A model of learned implementation. Public Administration, 82(2): 283-308.


35. Stoffers, J., Schrijver, I., Kleefstra, A. (2018). Designing training programs for HRD, expectations of participants explored, Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(3): 4-6


36. Stufflebeam, D. (2003). Evaluation Models, New Directions for Evaluation,89. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.


37. Taleghani, G.R., Ghaffari, A., Haghighi, M. (1395). Investigating the effect of human resource management tools on improving organizational performance among employees of the University of Tehran, Quarterly Journal of Public Management, 8 (1): 1-14.


38. Triguero-Sánchez, R., Pe˜na-Vinces, J. C., & Sánchez-Apellániz, M. (2015). Towhat extent the employees’ diversity moderates the relationship amongHRM practices and organizational performance: Evidences on Spanish firms.Tourism & Management Studies (in press).


39. Vahdati, H. & Montazeri Najafabadi, R. (1399). Complicating the implementation of government policies in Iranian universities of medical sciences with Shannon entropy approach. Management strategies in the health system. 5 (3): 226-209.


40. YEAKEY, C. (1983). Emerging policy research in educational research and decision making. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Washington, D.C.: American Educa- tional Research Association.