شناسایی عوامل مؤثر در سنجش بهره‌وری پژوهشی اعضای هیأت علمی در حوزه‌ی علوم انسانی و اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه تهران)

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای تخصصی سنجش آموزش، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران. تهران، ایران

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

4 دانشیار دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم‌تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر سنجش بهره‌وری پژوهشی اعضای هیأت علمی در حوزه‌های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی دانشگاه تهران صورت گرفت.
مواد و روش‌ها: پژوهش با رویکرد کیفی به شیوه نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها (روش نوخاسته) انجام گرفت. به منظور گردآوری داده‌های پژوهش، ابزار مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختاریافته بکار برده شد. مصاحبه‌هایی با 18 نفر از اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه‌ها به صورت هدفمند با راهبرد نمونه‌گیری ملاک‌محور انجام گرفت. داده‌ها طی دو مرحله کدگذاری باز و محوری مورد تحلیل و بررسی قرار گرفتند. روایی یافته‌های پژوهش با استفاده از روش‌های بررسی توسط اعضا، بررسی کنندگان بیرونی و چندسویه نگری منابع داده‌ها تضمین گردید.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج تحلیل کیفی پژوهش نشان داد که عوامل اصلی در سنجش بهره‌وری پژوهشی اعضای هیأت علمی در سه بعد؛ کیفیت بروندادهای پژوهش (کیفیت مقاله، کتاب، پایان‌نامه، نوآوری و اخلاق در پژوهش)، اثر دستاوردهای پژوهش (استنادات، تعاملات پژوهشی، اشاعه و کاربست نتایج، ترویج علم، فناوری، درآمدزایی و اعتبار پژوهشی) و محیط پژوهش (منابع مالی و کالبدی، منابع انسانی و مکانیزم تشویقی) قرار می‌گیرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identifying Effective Factors in the Assessment of Research Productivity of Faculty Members in the Humanities and Social Sciences (Case Study: University of Tehran)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Eslami 1
  • Rezvan Hakimzadeh 2
  • Ali Akbar Saboury 3
  • Valiolah Farzad 4
1 Ph.D. in Educational Measurement and Evaluation, Faculty of Psychology and Education. Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education. Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, the Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Objective: The purpose of the present research is to identify the effective factors in the assessment of research productivity of faculty members in the fields of humanities and social sciences of the University of Tehran.
Materials and methods: This research was conducted using a qualitative approach and content analysis method. Semi-structured interview tools were used to collect the research data. With targeted sampling, interviews were conducted with 18 faculty members from universities. The data were analyzed in two stages of open and axial coding. The validity of the research findings was guaranteed by member checking, external audit, and data source triangulation.
Result and discussion: The results of the qualitative analysis of the research showed that the main factors in evaluating the research productivity of the faculty members were identified in three dimensions: the factor of the quality of the research outcomes (the quality of the article, book, dissertation, innovation and ethics in the research), the effect of research achievements (Citations, research interactions, dissemination and application of results, promotion of science, technology, income, and research credibility) and research environment (financial and physical resources, human resources and incentive mechanism).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher education
  • research evaluation
  • research impact
  • research productivity
  • research quality

مراجع

Abbaszadeh, M. (2012). Validity and reliability in qualitative researches. Journal of Applied Sociology. 23(1). 19-34.
Abramo. G., Cicero. T. & D’Angelo. A.A. (2013). Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics. 7. 528– 539.
Abramo. Giovanni. & D’Angelo. C.A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity?. Scientometrics. 101:1129–1144.
Alibeygi. A. H. (2007). An Analysis of the Research Productivity of Faculty Members: The Case of Razi University. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 13(4). 125-154.
Anfossi, A., Ciolfi, A., Costa, F., Parisi, G. and Benedetto, s.(2016). Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators.15th Conference on Sciento- metrics & Informetrics. Scientometrics: 107:671–683.
Azizi, N. (2013). A Study of Ways to Improve Research Performance of Humanities Faculty Members. Journal Management system. 6(21). 7-33.
Bacon, D. R., Paul,P., Stewart,K.A. & Mukhopadhyay,K. (2012). A New Tool for Identifying Research Standards and Evaluating Research Performance. Journal of marketing education. 34(12):194-208.
Bazargan, Abbas. (2010). An Introduction to Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research.Tehran: Didar.
Bland, C. J. & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Academic Medicine. 67(6), 385-397.
Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research an expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4). 179-189.
Dev, C.S., Parsa, H.G., Parsa, A.A., and Bujisic, M.(2015). Assessing Faculty Productivity by Research Impact: Introducing Dp2 Index. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. 15:93–124. DOI: 10.1080/15313220.2015.1026471.
ERA (2015). Research Assessment Exercise .The State of Australian University Research (2015–2016).Volume 1 ERA. Natinal Report. http://www.arc.gov.au/era-2015.
Eshaghi, F., Mohammadi, R., & Parand, K. (2008). Proper Performance Evaluation System of Faculty (criteria and procedures). Journal of Higher Education Letter. 2(1). 93-111.
Farasatkhah, M. (2018). Qualitative research method in social sciences: GTM theory. Tehran: Agah.
Faraji Armaki, A., Arasteh, H. R., & Farasatkhah, M. (2012). Developing a Model for Increasing Research Productivity of University Faculty Member: a Case Study of Shahid Beheshti University. Journal of Management and Planning in Educational Systems. 5(8). 95-117.
Ghorchian, N., Arasteh, H. R., & Jafari, P. (2004). Encyclopedia of Higher Education. Vol.2. Tehran: Ministry of Science, Research & Technology.
 Hadjinicola, G. C. & A. C. Soteriou. (2006). Factors Affecting Research Productivity of Production and Operations Management Groups: An Empirical Study. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences.10: 1-16.
Hedjazi, Y., & Behravan, J. (2009). The Relationship Between Individual and Institutional Factors and Research Productivity of Agricultural Faculty Members The Case of: Agricultural Faculties of Tehran Province. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal. 1(5). 47-60.
Hoseinpoor, M. (2012). The Research Pathology of Faculty Members in Human Sciences. Iranian of Journal the Knowledge Studies in the Islamic University. 16(50). 45-64.
Jacob, Brian and Lars Lefgren. (2007). The Impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. NBER Working Paper 13519: 1-67.
Kyvik, S., & AKsens, D. W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: a generational perspective. Studies higher education. 40(8), 1438-1453. 
Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X. & Qi., W.(2011). Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics: 90:531–542 .DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1.
Nguyen, Q. H., & Klopper, C. J. (2014). The influences of research environment within a university on research productivity of academic staff – a case study in a research – oriented university in VIETNAM. International Journal of arts and sciences. 7(2), 189-197.
Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Rezaee, M. ( 2014). Scientometrics, International Special Indexes, Scientific Productivity Evaluation. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management. 30(1). 3-39.
Noroozi Chakoli, A., Ghazavi, R., & Taheri, B. (2016). Valuation of Research Evaluation Indicators in Different Scientific Fields in Iran. Journal of Science & Technology Policy. 7(4). 31-40.
RAE2020. (2017). Consultation on proposed Framework for Research Assessment Exercise2020. http://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/rae/2020/framework_consult_letter.pdf
Ramesh Babu, A & Y. P Singh. (1998). Determination of research productivity. Scientometrics 43 (3): 309-329.
REF (2014). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/
Royal, K. D.,  Akers, k. S., Lybarger, M. A., & Zakrajsek, T. D. (2014). Using Social Network Analysis to Evaluate Research Productivity and Collaborations. Journal of Faculty Development. 28(1),  49-58.
Saboury, A. A. (2012). Studying the quality of science: invalid Journals. Science Cultivation Journal. 3(1). 33-42.
Saboury, A. A. (2016). Scientific Documents of Iran in 2015. Science Cultivation Journal. 6(2). 92-102.
Saboury, A. A. (2017). Scientific Documents of Iran in 2016. Science Cultivation Journal. 7(2). 72-79.
Sanchez, T.W. (2017). Faculty Performance Evaluation Using Citation Analysis: An Update. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 37(1):83 –94. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X16633500
Seggie, S. H., & Griffith, D. A. (2009). What does it take to get promoted in marketing academia? Understanding exceptional publication productivity in the leading marketing journals. Journal of Marketing, 73, 122-132.
Shepherd, C. D., Carley, S. S., & Stuart, R. S. (2009). An exploratory investigation of the periodic performance evaluation processes for marketing faculty: A comparison of doctoral-granting and non-doctoral-granting universities. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 143-153.
Steward, M. D., & Lewis, B. R. (2010). A comprehensive analysis of marketing journal rankings. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 75-92.
Sweileh, W.M., Zyoud, S.H., Al.khalil, S., Al.Jabi, S.W., Sawalha, A.F., (2014). Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of the Palestinian Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study at An-Najah National University, Palestine. SAGE Open, vol. 4(3): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014544287
Webber, K. L. (2011). Factors Related to Faculty Research Productivity and Implications for Academic Planners. Planning for higher education. 39(4), 32-43.
Webber, K. L. (2011). Factors Related to Faculty Research Productivity and Implications for Academic Planners. Planning for higher education. 39(4), 32-43.
 Youseliani, G. A., Behrangi, M. R., Arasteh, H. R., & Abdollahi, B. (2016). Designing and Codifying Evaluation Indexes of the Performance of Research System in Education; Case Study: Instite of Ministry of Education Studies, Using a Qualitative Approach. Journal of Educational Measurement and Evaluation studies. 6(14). 69-109.
Zare Ahmadabadi, H., Javadi, S., & Tahari Mehrjerdi, M. H. (2013). Presenting a model for evaluating the performance of research and development branch of technical and engineering department (case study: Engineering and Technology Department of University of Yazd). Iranian Journal of Engineering Education. 15(58). 85-99.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار