Evaluation of the research program intervention mechanism r of Tehran University faculty members

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Imam Sadiq University (AS) Growth Center, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Public Policy, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Management, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

In a situation where the research credits of the universities do not provide enough for the various faculty research activities and the lack of resources is a constant limitation, the optimal and targeted allocation of the available credits has become doubly important. In addition to these credit allocation mechanisms, it plays a unique role in transferring external expectations and demands from the institution of science and is one of the most effective tools for objectifying strategic plans and policies. This research has been carried out with the aim of evaluating the intervention mechanism of the Faculty Grant Program of Tehran University.
The required data were collected using face-to-face interviews with program designers and their archival interviews, oral memories and documents related to the program. In the next step, using causal coding process, the content obtained from the previous step was coded. As a result, several causal chains were obtained, which were classified and merged based on their similarity, and the narrative of the program theory change was shaped.
The findings of the research indicate that although this program was a step forward and promoted a kind of rationality in the research credit allocation system at the time of its formulation, but now it can be criticized from the point of view that adopting an impartial approach towards the fields and respecting values such as scientific cooperation. In addition, there are many doubts about the effectiveness and efficiency of performance-based allocation systems. Another criticism of the program is the lack of leverage metaphor toward the university's internal resources.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Islamic Parliament Research Center. 2024. Examining the second part of the country's 1403 budget bill (17): the field of higher education, research and technology. {In Persian} [2] Smith, D. O. (2011). Managing the research university. OUP USA.‏
[3] Franssen, T., Scholten, W., Hessels, L. K., & de Rijcke, S. (2018). The drawbacks of project funding for epistemic innovation: Comparing institutional affordances and constraints of different types of research funding. Minerva, 56(1), 11-33.‏
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9
[4] Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2018). The impact of changing funding and authority relationships on scientific innovations. Minerva, 56(1), 109-134.‏
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9343-7
[5] Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: are there negative unintended consequences?. Journal of economic issues, 35(3), 607-632.‏
https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2001.11506393
[6] Langfeldt, L., Bloch, C. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2015). Options and limitations in measuring the impact of research grants—evidence from Denmark and Norway. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 256-270.‏
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv012
[7] Neufeld, J. (2016). Determining effects of individual research grants on publication output and impact: The case of the Emmy Noether Programme (German Research Foundation). Research Evaluation, 25(1), 50-61.‏
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv029
[8] Schneider, J. W., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2014). Analysing robustness and uncertainty levels of bibliometric performance statistics supporting science policy. A case study evaluating Danish postdoctoral funding. Research evaluation, 23(4), 285-297.‏
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu016
[9]  Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of NIH postdoctoral training grants on scientific productivity. Research policy, 40(6), 864-874.‏
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.003
[10] Van den Besselaar, P. and Sandstro¨m U. (2015), ‘Early Career Grants, Performance, and Careers: A Study on Predictive Validity of Grant Decisions’, Journal of Informetrics, 9/4: 826–38.
DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.011
[11] Bornmann, L. and Daniel H.-D. (2008), ‘Reliability, Fairness, and Predictive Validity of the Peer Review Process for the Selection of Research Fellowshi Recipients of the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds’. In Kehm, B. M. (ed.) Hochschule im Wandel. Die Universita¨t als Forschungsgegenstand, pp. 365–76. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
[12] Torka, M. (2018). Projectification of doctoral training? How research fields respond to a new funding regime. Minerva, 56(1), 59-83.‏
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9342-8
[13] Connell, Raewyn, and Catherine Manathunga. 2012. On Doctoral Education: How to Supervise a PhD, 1985–2011. Australian Universities’ Review 54(1): 5–9.
https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.424243731811708
[14] Louvel, Se ´verine. 2012. The ‘Industrialization’ of Doctoral Training? A Study of the Experiences of Doctoral Students and Supervisors in the French Life Sciences. Science & Technology Studies 25(2): 23–45.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55274
[15] Laudel, G., & Gläser, J. (2014). Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy, 43(7), 1204-1216.‏
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.006
[16] Ossenblok, T. L., Engels, T. C., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280-290.
DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvs019
[17] Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research evaluation, 24(2), 106-117.‏
DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvv003
[18] Vanecek, J., & Pecha, O. (2020). Fast growth of the number of proceedings papers in atypical fields in the Czech Republic is a likely consequence of the national performance-based research funding system. Research Evaluation, 29(3), 245-262.‏
DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvaa005
[19] Anderson, D. L., & Tressler, J. (2014). The New Zealand performance-based research fund and its impact on publication activity in economics. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 1-11.‏
DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvt017
[20] Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research policy, 27(8), 807-821.‏
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00092-4
[21] Braun, D. (2006). Delegation in the distributive policy arena: the case of research policy. In Delegation in contemporary democracies, Braun, D., & Gilardi, F.,  162-186. Routledge.‏
[22] Laudel, G. (2006). The ‘quality myth’: Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. Higher Education, 52(3), 375-403.‏
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6414-5
[23] Faiz, A., & Shahabi, A., )2009(. Evaluation and prioritization of university-industry communication barriers: (Semnan city case study). Educational Leadership & administration,2(4)97-124. {In Persian}
https://journals.iau.ir/article_538788.html
[24] Khaleghi Soroush, F., Abolghasemi, M., Gara Nejad, G., & Dolo. M., (2017) Designing a model for the allocation of higher education resources in Iran. Financial Economics. 39(11).147-170. {In Persian}
https://journals.iau.ir/article_535188.html
[25] Entezari, Y., & Gharun, M. (2015). Rationality and performance of government on financing higher education in Iran. Higher Education Letter, 8(29), 11-38. {In Persian}
https://journal.sanjesh.org/article_14809.html
[26] Galini Moghadam, G., & Heidarinasab, L. (2015). The Grant-Based Research System at Shahed University: from Regulations to Administration. Higher Education Letter, 8(30), 85-96. {In Persian}
https://journal.sanjesh.org/article_15406.html
[27] Galyani-Moghaddam, G., & Heydarinasab, L. (2016). Analysis, Evaluation and Pathology of Research Grants: A Case Study of Two Universities in Tehran. Digital and Smart Libraries Researches, 3(2), 63-74. {In Persian}
https://lib.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_4288.html
[28] Chen, H. T. (2015). Practical program evaluation: Theory-driven evaluation and the integrated evaluation perspective. Sage Publications.‏
[29] Chen, H. T.(1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Sage.‏
[30] Coryn, C. L., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199-226.‏
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010389321
[31] Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.‏
[32] Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
[33] Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage publications.‏
[34] Abedi Ja’fari, H., Taslimi, M. S., Faghihi, A., & Sheikhzade, M. (2011). Thematic Analysis and Thematic Networks: A Simple and Efficient Method for Exploring Patterns Embedded in Qualitative Data Municipalities). Strategic Management Thought, 5(2), 151-198. {In Persian}
https://smt.isu.ac.ir/article_163.html
[35] National Consultative Assembly.1944. Annotated deliberations of the fourteenth term of National Consultative Assembly. 1/23/1945. {In Persian}
[36] Siassi,. A. (2015). A political life. Tehran: Sales. {In Persian}
[37] National Consultative Assembly.1978. Annotated deliberations of the fourteenth term of National Consultative Assembly. 9/13/1978. {In Persian}
[38] National Consultative Assembly.1978. Annotated deliberations of the fourteenth term of National Consultative Assembly. 7/2/1967. {In Persian}
[39] National Consultative Assembly.1967. Annotated deliberations of the fourteenth term of National Consultative Assembly. 3/14/1967. {In Persian}
[40] Farasatkhah,. M. (2014). Eighty-year history of technical faculty of Tehran University: the story of a house, the story of a land.Tehran: nashreney {InPersian}

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics