تحلیل تطبیقی اهداف و سیاست‌های کلان آموزش عالی در کشورهای کانادا، استرالیا، ایتالیا، قطر و امارات متحده عربی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه مطالعات تطبیقی و نوآوری، موسسه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی آموزش عالی، تهران، ایران.

2 دکتری اقتصاد و مدیریت مالی آموزش عالی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم‌تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران

چکیده

درمقاله حاضر به تحلیل و مقایسه سیاست‌ها و اهداف آموزش عالی در کشورهای کانادا، استرالیا، ایتالیا، قطر و امارات متحده عربی پرداخته و تناسب این سیاست‌ها برای ایران از منظر میزان مطلوبیت و بومی‌سازی آنها بررسی شده است. در چارچوب پژوهش، اهداف و سیاست‌های کلان کشورهای انتخاب شده مورد احصاء قرار گرفته و سپس وجوه اشتراک و افتراق آنها مشخص شده است.. نتایج نشان داد که : استرالیا همسوبا رویکردها وسیاستهای کشورهای مشترک المنافع (همسو با بریتانیای کبیر) عمل می‌کند. دراین کشورها آموزش عالی به مثابه یک صنعت پرسود ظهور یافته است. همچنانکه درانگلستان که رهبر این مجموعه کشورهاست چنین است. ایتالیا درچارچوب سیاست‌های اتحادیه اروپا و تحقق فرآیند بولونیا رفتار می‌کند. این فرایند منطقه آموزش عالی اروپا را تحت کنوانسیون لیسبون ایجاد کرده‌است. کانادا سیاست‌ها و برنامه‌های خاص خود را دارد و درچارچوب بین‌المللی‌شدن توانست حتی در دوران کرونا اهداف خود را در مورد تحرک بین‌المللی استادان و دانشجویان و کسب ثروت ازطریق نوآوری دنبال کند. این کشور قصد دارد در نوآوری پیشرو باشد و هسته مرکزی آن دانشگاهها هستند. قطر و امارات بدنبال جهش علمی سریع با اتکا به امکانات منطقه‌ای و مشاوره امریکا و انگلستان هستند و نظام آموزش عالی آنها هنوز دولتی است. درپایان، از منظر میزان مطلوبیت و امکان بومی‌سازی، سیاست‌ها و اهداف متنوع این کشورها توسط متخصصان آموزش عالی رتبه‌بندی شدند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative analysis of goals and policies of higher education in Canada, Australia, Italy, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates

نویسندگان [English]

  • Gholamreza Zakersalehi 1
  • Ahmad keykha 2
1 Professor, Institute for Research & Planning in Higher Education, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D., Department of Educational Planning Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
In this article, the policies and goals of higher education in several selected countries have been analyzed and compared, and the appropriateness of these policies for Iran has been examined from the point of view of their desirability and localization. In the framework of the research, the goals and macro policies of the selected countries have been calculated and then their commonalities and differences have been identified. The results showed that: Australia acts in line with the approaches and policies of the Commonwealth of Nations (in line with Great Britain). In these countries, higher education has emerged as a profitable industry. As it is in England, which is the leader of this group of countries. Italy behaves within the framework of EU policies and the implementation of the Bologna process. This process has created the European Higher Education Area under the Lisbon Convention. Canada has its own policies and programs, and in the framework of internationalization, it was able to pursue its goals regarding the international mobility of professors and students and gaining wealth through innovation, even during the Corona era. This country intends to be a leader in innovation and the central core of that is the universities. Qatar and the UAE are looking for a rapid scientific leap by relying on regional facilities and advice from the United States and England, and their higher education system is still state-run. Finally, from the point of view of the degree of desirability and the possibility of localization, the various policies and goals of these countries were ranked by higher education experts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher education policies
  • higher education goals
  • comparative higher education
  • Friedman test
  • comparative method

مراجع

[1] Hamdan, A., Sarea, A., Khamis, R., & Anasweh, M. (2020). A causality analysis of the link between higher education and economic development: empirical evidence. Heliyon, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04046
[2] Khalafkhani, M (2013). Comparative study of methods of government support for Public and private higher education. Iranian Higher Education, 5(4), 83. {In Persian}. URL: http://ihej.ir/article-۱-۵۸۷-fa.html
[3] Ghanavati, F. & Mashayekh, J. (2022). Methodological Foundations in Comparative Studies of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy in Iran. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 15(2), 93-108. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 10.22034/JSTP.2022.13944
[4] Keykha, A.  &Zakersalehi, Gh   )2021). Comparative Evaluation of Macro-Higher Education Policies of Selected Countries. Journal of Measuring and Educational Evaluation Studies, 11(33), 71-90. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 10.22034/EMES.2021.247579
[5] Dinmohammadi, M., Narimani Bonab, M & Ghorbani, F (2018). Simulation of Changes in the Supply and Unemployment of Highly Educated Population in 2016- 2025, Journal of Economic Research, 53(124), 569-595. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 10.22059/JTE.2017.225192.1007458
[6] Keykha, A., Ezati, M. (2021). Identifying factors hindering ecosystem development, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial university. Innovation Management Journal, 10(2), 55-84{In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 20.1001.1.23225386.1400.10.1.3.8
[7] Razagh Marandi, H, Rahimzade, Kh & Ghorban Khaje, O (2013). Institutional autonomy in the Iranian public universities affiliated with the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. Iranian Higher Education, 5(4), 137{In Persian}. URL: http://ihej.ir/article-۱-۵۸۹-fa.html
[8] Mosadeghrad, A (2022). A practical model for health policy making and analysis, Payesh, 21(1), 7-24. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 10.52547/payesh.21.1.7
[9] Le Thanh Khoi (1998) Comparative Education, translated by Mohammad Yamini Dozi Sorkhabi, Samt Publications 2018. {In Persian}.
[10] Khorsandi Taskoh, A (2017). Critical policy analysis: the missing link of policy research in Iran's higher education policymaking. Proceedings of the first policy conference in Iran's higher education {In Persian}.
[11] Chapman, B., & Greenaway, D. (2006). Learning to live with loans? International policy transfer and the funding of higher education. World economy, 29(8), 1057-1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00822.x
[12] Education Policy (2022). At https://www.rand.org. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
[13] Wilson, Harold E. (1978). Social Engineering in Singapore: Educational Policies and Social Change, 1819-1972. Institute of Southeast Asian studies. Singapore University Press. Retrieved 24 November 2021
[14] Altbach, P (2009) Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracing an Academic Revolution, translated by Mohammad Reza Saeedabadi and Parveen Ahmad Khanlou, Higher Education Research and Planning Institute, 2013
[15] Keykha, A, Zakersalehi, Gh (2021). Comparative Representation of the Vision and Policies of Higher Education Institutions in Seven Countries. Journal of Sociology of Social Institutions, 7(16), 117-151. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 10.22080/SSI.2021.3136
[16] Mohamadi, R, Zamanifar, M & Sadeghimandi, F (2016). Evaluation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Voluntary or Mandatory Process? Journal of Measuring and Educational Evaluation Studies, 6(14), 165-201. {In Persian}. URL: https://jresearch.sanjesh.org/article_22176.html?lang=fa
[17] Mirhosseini, A., Mohamdi Doostar, H (2008). A comparative investigation of academic promotion criteria in higher. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 1(3), 91-106 {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 20.1001.1.20080840.1387.1.3.8.8
[18] Kanjo, K. A., Haqhani, M., Abolghasimi, M., Ghahramani, M., & Nazari Hashemi, S. R. (2022). A Comparative Study of Higher Education Development in Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. Iranian Journal of Comparative Education, 5(4), 2164-2182. https://doi.org/10.22034/IJCE.2022.326825.1386
[19] ZakerSalahi, Gh., Keykha, A. (2019). A Comparative Study in Higher Education Goals of Certain Countries, Iranian Journal of Comparative Education. 2(3), 346-361. https://doi.org/ 10.22034/IJCE.2020.103836
[20] Canhilal, S. K., Lepori, B., & Seeber, M. (2016). Decision-making power and institutional logic in higher education institutions: A comparative analysis of European universities. In Towards a comparative institutionalism: Forms, dynamics and logics across the organizational fields of health care and higher education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[21] Triventi, M. (2013). Stratification in higher education and its relationship with social inequality: A comparative study of 11 European countries. European sociological review, 29(3), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr092
[22] Capano, G. (2011). Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622-1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01936.x
[23] Finfgeld‐Connett, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2013). Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge‐building and theory‐generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of advanced nursing, 69(1), 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06037.x
[24] World Population Review (2022). At https:// worldpopulationreview.com/countries/by-gdp
[25] The Global Economy (2022). At https://www.theglobaleconomy.com
[26] United Nations Development Programme (2022). At https://hdr.undp.org/
[27] Scimago (2022). At https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php
[28] Miremadi, S. I. (2019). National Innovation System and Its Role in Improving Science, Technology and Innovation Policies. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 135-154. {In Persian}. https://doi.org/ 20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.10.5
[29] ZakerSalahi, Gh., Keykha, A. (2022). Comparative study of goals, perspectives and policies of higher education in selected countries and its lessons for Iran (third wave). Tehran: Higher Education Research and Planning Institute {In Persian}.
 
 
 
 

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار