ارائه الگوی مفهومی کاربرد علوم انسانی؛ با هدف ارتقای کیفی این علوم

محورهای موضوعی : آموزش و پرورش

وجیهه کریمی ¹ , محمد رضا بهرنگی ²

1 - استادیار علوم تربیتی، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
2 - استاد مدیریت آموزشی، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/08/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/07/30 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/06/01

کلید واژه: مدل مفهومی, کاربرد علوم انسانی, علوم انسانی, ارتقاء کیفی,

چکیده مقاله :

مقدمه و هدف: هدف پژوهش حاضر تحلیل مولفه ها و عوامل موثر بر کاربرد علوم انسانی و ارائه یک مدل مفهومی در راستای ارتقای کیفی علوم انسانی است. روش شناسی پژوهش: روش تحقیق، توصیفی پیمایشی با رویکرد آمیخته بود. در بخش کیفی، از روش نمونه گیری هدفمند و تکنیک گلوله برفی استفاده گردید و با به کارگیری معیار اشباع نظری، با 20 نفر از اندیشمندان در دانشگاه های اصفهان و خوارزمی مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته صورت گرفت. جامعه بخش کمی، اعضای هیات علمی رشته های علوم انسانی دانشگاه پیام نور استان اصفهان و چهار محال بختیاری بودند که به کمک فرمول کوکران تعداد 380 نفر به عنوان نمونه با روش نمونه گیری تصادفی گزینش شدند. اجرای بخش کمی با ابزار پرسشنامه محقق ساخته حاصل از نتایج بخش کیفی انجام گرفت. روایی و اعتبار سوالات مصاحبه با روش روایی محتوایی و ضریب توافق تایید گردید. اعتبار پرسشنامه نیز پس از بررسی محتوایی توسط صاحبنظران بخش کیفی، به کمک تحلیل عاملی تاییدی، همسانی درونی و آلفای کرونباخ(83/0) تایید گردید. تحلیل داده ها در بخش کیفی به روش داده بنیاد و تحلیل یافته های کمی با استفاده از شاخص های توصیفی، تحلیل عاملی تاییدی و الگویابی معادلات ساختاری انجام گرفت. یافته ها: یافته های بخش کیفی زمینه ساز ارائه الگوی نظری گردید. در بررسی وضع موجود از بین مولفه ها، ارزیابی پیگیر و مخاطب­شناسی؛ و در بین عوامل، تداخل نگرش های سیاسی علمی و سیاستگذاری و برنامه­ریزی استراتژیک دارای بیشترین سهم در تاثیر بر کاربست علوم انسانی بودند. هم چنین در صد بالایی از واریانس متغیر ملاک کاربست علوم انسانی به وسیله متغیرهای پیش­بین مدیریت حرفه ای، فرهنگ، نگرش اجتماع، سیاست گذاری و برنامه­ریزی استراتژیک، قابل تبیین بود. بحث و نتیجه ­گیری:  بر اساس نتایج، توجه به این هفت مؤلفه و عوامل به منظور بهره برداری از یافته های علمی در حوزه علوم انسانی باید مورد توجه قرار گیرد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to analyze the components and factors affecting the application of humanities and to present a conceptual model for quality improvement of humanities.   research methodology: The research method used is descriptive and mixed. In the qualitative section, purposive sampling method and snowball technique were used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 thinkers in the field of humanities in Isfahan and Kharazmi universities using theoretical saturation criteria. The population of the quantitative section was the faculty members of humanities in Payame Noor universities of Isfahan and Chaharmahal Bakhtiari. 380 people were selected as a sample by random sampling method. The quantitative part was performed with a researcher-made questionnaire obtained from the results of the qualitative part. The validity and reliability of the interview questions were confirmed by content validity method and agreement coefficient. After reviewing the content by experts, the validity of the questionnaire was also confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency and Cronbach's alpha (0.83). For date analysis in the qualitative part of oper, axial and selective coding based on the Granded Theory. For data analysis in the quantitative part based on confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Findings: Theoretical model consisting of seven components and six effective factors was presented.In examining the current situation among the components, continuous evaluation and audience knowledge; And among the factors, the interference of scientific political attitudes and policymaking and strategic planning had the greatest contribution in affecting the application of humanities. Conclusion: Based on the results, attention to these seven components and six factors in order to exploit the scientific findings in the field of humanities should be considered.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Abdulahi, M, (2002). Scientific research and its obstacles in Iran. The Journal of Research Culture, (10)2, pp. 58-73. [in Persian]


2. Abedi, A., Arizi, H., and Shavakhi, A. (2005). Meta-analysis of effective factors on increasing the application of research findings in the Ministry of Education. Tehran, Journal of Educational Innovation, 4(12), 109-133. [in Persian]


3. Arasteh, H. (2007). A framework for compiling a map of the country's scientific development: A systemic approach. Journal of Rahyaft, Number 16, 5-16. [in Persian]


4. Barzegar, N., Ghorchian. N. and Pourzahir. A. (2019). Product Pathology of Innovation Capacities in Iranian University Management (Case: Islamic Azad University). Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 10(1), Consecutive 37, 291-310. [in Persian]


5. Behrangi, M. and Hosseinian. S. (2008). Laying the groundwork for increasing the effectiveness of the humanities disciplines by reduces of barriers to mutual understanding in other disciplines. International Conference on Humanities, Vol. 8. [in Persian]


6. Carayanis, E. G. and Campbel. D. (2012). Knowledge Creation. Diffusion and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters, A Comparative Systems Approach across the Uinted States, Europe and Asia, Prayer Publisher, London.


7. Chinrichs, C., Schneyer. J. and Joye. L. (1998). Form Knowledge Extended to Knowledge Created: Challenging for a New Extension Paradigm. Journal of Extension, 36(4).


8. Clark, T. (2006). OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education. Country report: United Kingdom.


9. Clemins, P. J. (2011). Introduction to the Federal Budget. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Retrieved 8 February.


10. Edward, I. (1994). A Review of the Literature on Dessimination and knowledge utilization, ncddr.org/du/products/review/review8.html


11. Eivazi, M. (2008). Damages and obstacles of humanities in Iran. The Congress of Humanities, Vol. 7. [in Persian]


12. Ekrami, M. (2003). Model of educational leadership in Iranian public universities. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 5(3), Consecutive 29, 49-83. [in Persian]


13. Fadaei, S., Niaz Azari. K., and Taghvaei Yazdi, M. (2017). Presenting a model for creating an entrepreneurial university based on futuristic techniques and science production in the educational system. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 8(32), Consecutive 32, 18-1. [In Persian].


14. Farasatkhah, M. (2005). Investigating the role of scientific associations in policy-making and evaluation processes of the country's scientific system. Tehran: Country Scientific policies Research Center. [in Persian]


15. Farasatkhah, M. and Moniie. R. (2020). Organizational culture and leadership effectiveness at the university administrative level: Globe National Survey in Iran. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 26(1), Consecutive 95, 175-149. [in Persian]


16. Fatemi, H. (2015). Research Problems in the Development of the Third World. Third edition, Tehran: Corporation of Enteshar. [in Persian]


17. Fazekas, T. and Varro. V. (2008). Scientometrics and Publishing in Hungarian Medical Science. Ethical and Technical Issues, ORV Hetil, 142(45), 2493-9.


18. Fazeli, N. and Fotuhi. S. (2018). A Study of the Historical Process of Consolidation of Humanities in Iran. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 24(2), Consecutive 88, 186-161. [in Persian]


19. Fazlolahi, S. and Maleki Tavana. Mansoura. (2011). Solution to get out of cultural obstacles to science production in universities. Journal of Maerefat, 20(171), 111-124. [in Persian]


20. Fokuhi, N. (2000). From Culture to Development: Political. Social and Economic Development in Iran. Tehran: Ferdows Publications. [in Persian]


21. Fuhrman, M. (2004). A Review of the Literature on Dessimination and knowledge utilization. (Originators. Internediaries.http:// ncddr.org/du/products/review/review7.html.)


22. Ghobadi, H. A. (2008). Pathology of Humanities in Iran. The National Congress of Humanities, Volume 5. [in Persian]


23. Godet, M. (1994). From Anticipation to Action: UNESCO Publication.


24. Guan, J. And Chen, K. (2017). Measuring the Innovation Production Process: A Cross-Region Empirical Study of China’s High-Tech Innovations, 30(5), 348-358.


25. Hamdipour, A., Zavaregh, R. and Moradi, S. (2019). Challenges of knowledge empowerment of humanities professors of Tabriz University. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 11(2), Consecutive 42, 132-150. [in Persian]


26. Hamidizadeh, M. R. (2004). Knowledge creation of universities. The Conference on Higher Education and Sustainable Development, Tehran: Higher Education Research and Planning Institute. [in Persian]


27. Hayton, A. and Paczuska. A. (2004). Introduction: Education in Demand? Participation and Higher Education: Policy and practice; London: Kogan Page.


28. Hennink, M. Stephenson, R. (2004). Using Research to inform Health Policy: Barriers and Strategies in Developing Countries. Opportunity and Choices Working Paper, N. 9, 1-37.


29. Holm, V. M. and Liinason, M. (2005). Disciplinary boundaries between the social sciences and humanities: National report on Norway.


30. Holt, R. (2008). Knowledge utilization in Education. WWW.thedratner. com.


31. Hood, P. (2005). Perspectives on knowledge utilization in Education. www. West ED.org/ online.


32. Hooman, H. A. (2009). The nature of new research methods. Journal of Social Science Education Development, No. 43, 21-14. [in Persian]


33. Hopkins, D. A. (2011). Teachers guide to Classroom Research. Third edition Buckingham.U.K. P78.


34. http://www. UK / Arts and Humanities Research Council of Great Br (2013).


35. http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/erih-european-reference-index-for-the-humanities(ERIH). European Science Foundation.html (Accessed 13 December 2012)


36. https://www.ria.ie/about/our-work/ Task Force Academy for Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Europe 2018.


37. Humanities Massachusset Foundation (MFH). (2015). What are Humanities. Massachusset Foundation for the Humanities. retreved from http://www.mfh.org/ foundation/ human. Htm.


38. Karimi, V., Navehebrahim, A. R., Behrangi, M. R. and Arasteh, M.R. (2015). Identify the dimensions and components of humanities development management and present a conceptual model. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 21(3), Consecutive. 77, 151-169. [in Persian]


39. Karimian, Z., Lotfi, F., Saleh SedghPour, B. and Sabaghian, Z. (2010). Investigating the interactions of society: researchers and the university on science production. Journal of Research in Medical Education, 2(1), 1-9. [in Persian]


40. Karnema, A. (2008). The role of the country's institutions in promoting the humanities in universities. The National Congress of Humanities, Vol. 8. [in Persian]


41. Kisker, A. and Braown, A. (1996). Process of Knowledge utilization.www. Confex. Com


42. Klein, J. T. and Newell, W. H. (2008). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. In W.H. Newell (Ed). Interdisciplinary enterprise: Essays from the Literature. New York: CEEB. 3-22.


43. Landry, R., Amararm, N. and Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of Knowledge Transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), Pp: 561-592.


44. Lord, K. M. and Turekian, V. C. (2007). Time for a New Era of Science Diplomacy. Journal of innovation and Technology and Science, 5(315).


45. Majumder, M. A. A. (2004). Issues and Priorities of Medical Education Research in Asia, Annals Academy of Medicine, 33(2), Pp: 257-263.


46. Malek, H. and Sarukhani, B. (2008). Sociological analysis of the role of scientific associations in the educational and research policy-making process of the country. The Congress of Humanities, Volume 8. [in Persian]


47. Mansouri, R. (2002). We still do not believe in research. The Newsletter of Research and Technology, Vol 26. [in Persian]


48. Maracas, G. M. (1999). "Decision support system in the twenty – first century". Prentice- hall. Englewood cliffs VIII.


49. Martin, B. Tang, P. Morgan, M. Glanzel, W. Hornbostel, S. Lauer, G. and et al. (2010). Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities—A European scoping project, a report produced for DFG. ESRC. AHRC. NWO. ANR and ESF. Sussex: Science and Technology Policy Research Unit.


50. Matin, N. (2008). Application of research findings. Necessities. Theories and solutions, Journal of Educational Research Letter, No. 10, Tehran: Education Research Institute. [in Persian]


51. McClinton, J. (2007). Stetler Model of Research Utilization. By website. Web sit: P192.


52. MehrMohammadi, M. (2001). What are the reasons for Not applicable? And what are the ways to develop the application. Journal of Educational Research Letter, No. 10, Tehran: Education Research Institute. [in Persian]


53. Mirfardi, A. (2008). Pathology and analysis of the role of humanities in the comprehensive development of the country. The National Congress of Humanities, Vol. 6. [in Persian]


54. Mirzapour Armaki, A. (2011). The importance and necessity of the evolution of humanities and the production of religious science and strategies for its realization. Journal of Rahyaft, Vol 49, (in Persian]


55. Mohammad Davoodi, A. H. and Pajuhesh, sh. (2014). Evaluation of the common leadership model in the knowledge creation team in the faculty members of Razi University of Kermanshah. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 6(1), Consecutive 21. [in Persian].


56. Moravee, J. (2007). A New Paradigm of Knowledge Production in Minnesota Higher Education: A Delphi Study: University of Minnesota for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


57. MulaMohammadi, A. Khorasani, A. Fathi Ejaregah, K. and Farasatkhah, M. (2018). Investigating the development factors affecting the establishment of organizational quality management system in universities. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 11(2), Consecutive 42, Pp.109-134. [in Persian]


58. (2007). Research and Development Statistics. Gross domestic Expenditure on RandD by sector of performance and source of Funds, Release 1. tableE1.


59. Olade, R. (2008). Tyler collaborative research utilization. USA. 26^thSeptember poster.


60. Peterson, J. C. (2007). Framework for research utilization applied to seven case studies. America.


61. Pourghaz, A. W. Azizi, N. and Rigi, A. (2020). Critical review of university management in achieving top rankings in global rankings. Journal of Public Management Research, 13(47), consecutive 47, 219-243. [in Persian]


62. Rabbani, A. Ghasemi, V. Rabbani, R. Adibi Sedeh, M. and Ofoghi, N. (2011). Sociological analysis of science production methods: Reflections on new approaches. Journal of Cultural Research, 6(4), 158-117. [in Persian]


63. Rafipour, F. (2011). Obstacles to Iran's scientific growth and its solutions. Tehran: Publishing Joint Stock Company. [in Persian]


64. Rip, A. (2002). Science for 21th Century in: The Future of Science and the Humanitics. Amsterdam: Amesterdam University Press. 99-148.


65. Saboury, A. A. (2004). A Survey on Iran Science Production in 2003. The Journal of Rahyaft, 31, 3-21.


66. Saburi, A. A. (2008). Iranian science production in 2011. Journal of Nasha Alam, 2(2). [in Persian]


67. Safi, A. (2001). Research on research conducted in the Ministry of Education and the application of the results in higher management decisions. Tehran: Research Council of the Ministry of Education. [in Persian]


68. Saki, R. (2016). Systematic thinking: Prerequisite for research development in the field of humanities. The Congress of Humanities, Volume 7. [in Persian]


69. Sampt, B. and Mowery, D. (2005). University in National Innovation System. P.209.


70. Sangi, L. Mojahedi, M. M. Nabavi, A. A. and Hejazi, E. (2019). Investigating the obstacles to Iran's scientific development in the field of humanities with emphasis on the culture Factor. Journal of Political Studies, 11(43), 47-68. [in Persian]


71. Scarbrough, H. (2011). Knowledge a La Mode: The Rise of Knowledge Management and Its Implications for Views of Knowledge Production. Social Epistemology, 15(3), 201-213.


72. Schler, M. (2009). Problems of a Society of Knowledge. Tr. M. S. Frings. P.100


73. Sedigh Sarvestani, M. (2002). Investigating the factors affecting the growth and dynamics of humanities research in the University of Tehran: Institute of Social Studies and Research, University of Tehran. [in Persian]


74. Seipel, M. (2006). Interdisciplinarity: An Introduction. Truan state University. Kirksville. Missouri.


75. Shariatmadari, A. (2005). The place of humanities in the production of science. Tehran: Publication of Islamic Culture Office. [in Persian]


76. Silvio, V. L. (2007). The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Socity: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Perspective, No. 12, 142.


77. Sivertsen, G. Larsen, B. (2015). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential, Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575.


78. Smith, K. (1990). What is The Knowledge Economy? Pp. 43


79. Taiebi, S. J. (2003). Higher education and science production in Iran. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, No. 3. [in Persian]


80. Tofighi, J. and Faraskhah. M. (2002). Structural Requirements of scientific development in Iran. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, Vol. 25. [in Persian]


81. Willinsky, J. (2003). Policymakers’ online use of Academic Research. Education Plicy Analysis Archives, 11(2).


82. UA. Science policyin Australia 2019.


83. esf.org/../humanities-researchers/ Report of the Working Group on Science. Technology and Humanities of Europe (2008. 2011. 2018).


84. innovation.gov.au/../Budget/../SRI Budget T/ The Australian Government’s 2012-13 Science. Research and Innovation Budget Tables.