ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Ronaghi   M. (* )
Feyzi   K. (1 )






(* ) Psychology Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
(1 ) Psychology Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence

Article History

Received:  July  10, 2013
Accepted:  September 23, 2013
ePublished:  July 7, 2014

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-3] As a manifest or non-manifest individual or group decision-making, politics provides guidance for future decisions or implementations for former decisions [4]. The main subject in science policy is allocation of resources to science, in order to provide more efficiency and welfare. … [5-7] In the science policies, science production is mainly focused on and higher education, intellectual property rights, research funding, research centers, and task exemptions are some of production tools [8]. Educational policies are laws and procedures for educational systems operation. Educational policies play a crucial role regarding the universities as a connector of business environment and as the positions for ultimate scientific promotion [9]. Technological policy refers to the policies which deal with technology and its tools. In technology policies, the main concentration is on development and commercialization of technical science. Study of the industry sectors, technology forecasting, standardization, coping with changes, and intermediary institutions are examples of the technological policies realization tools [10]. The structural, legal, political, economic, technological, and educational factors are effective factors on educational and technological policies. … [11] In the structural field, the organizations structures should be designed for quick responses to the environmental changes and using the market benefits by a flexible structure [12]. In the legal field, designing motivational programs to apply educational and technological policies is one of the effective factors on policy [12]. In the political field, the policy-makers and the performers of the policies are two groups of the beneficiaries. Interaction and cooperation between these groups lead to policy success [13]. In the economic field, a policy is evaluated successful when its outcomes can cope with the competitors outcomes in the market [12, 13]. In the technological field, tacit science and human capital are of technological assets in the organization. Technological assets promotion is of successful technological and educational policies signs [14]. … [15] In the educational field, emphasis on the learning formation and its accumulation in human resources, and also designing mechanisms to transfer science is considered as one of the main factors in educational and technology policy [16].

In Iran, strategic decision-making and IT in the higher education has been studied [17]. The stages of educational policy in the USA [18] and the effects of IT on educational policies in the developing countries [19] have been assessed. None of the mentioned studies considered the effective factors on compilation of scientific and academic policies. They just have assessed some different aspects of the educational policies or policy-making procedure.

The aim of this study was to identify the effective factors on compilation of university educational and technological policies.

This is a descriptive-survey study.

The ex-deans or ex-educational deputies of University of Tehran in 10 years to the research were studied in 2012.

Based on Cochran’s formula and using simple random sampling, 150 persons were selected. 112 persons completed the questionnaires.

The questionnaires were distributed among the samples and collected within 32 days. The researcher-made questionnaire was designed in the three stages. At the first stage, consulting policy and strategic planning experts, university educational and technological policies were evaluated as scientific policies. At the second stage, through semi-structured interviews with the experts (5 policy and strategic planning professors), different indices were obtained for every field; and based on qualitative analysis of contents of the interviews, similar indices, accepted by the experts, were identified in every field of the six-field research model. Two encoders encoded and categorized the experts’ replies. Encoding reliability was confirmed by Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient equal to 0.81. At the third stage, based on the obtained indices according to the experts’ viewpoints, a questionnaire was compiled for model fitting. After distributing among 20 subjects, preliminary questionnaires were corrected and the final questionnaire was formed. Due to the corrections and professors and experts’ views, validity of the questionnaire was confirmed. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient (0.79) was used to assess reliability of the tool. The questionnaire had 6 fields with 8 compiled questions for each field. Based on the experts’ viewpoints, the question factors for all fields were assumed equal. Through factor analyzing method and using LISERL 8.8 software and One-sample T test, data were analyzed. RMR, CFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, RMSEA, GFI, RFI, and Chi Square were used for fitting measurement of the model [20-22].

All the components were confirmed based on the results of factor analysis. The six introduced fields and all their components had acceptable and appropriate fitness. Consistency of the pattern with the collected data was confirmed based on appropriate fitness of the conceptual model of the research (Table 1).

Effective educational planning, staff skills to use the commercial information, and commitment of leaders’ decision are three cultural characteristics and university management which are directly associated with its performance. Organizations, which employed more advanced IT, performed better strategies in student selection and training and had more positive performance which is consistent with Akbarian and Dorri study regarding the technological and educational component.

Assessment of the process of implementation of the university educational policies and presentation of a development model for educational policies in the universities ought to be done.

Political considerations and difficult access to the participants were of the limits for the study.

The effective factors on educational and technological policies can be categorized into economic, political, structural, educational, technological, and legal fields.

The researchers feel grateful to Ms. Zarei for her helps.

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analyzing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2007;74(4):413-32.
[2]Birkland TA. An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. 3rd ed. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2010.
[3]Bach T, Niklasson B, Painter M. The role of agencies in policy-making. Polic Soc. 2012;31(3):183-93.
[4]Furst E. Making the way to the university environmentally sustainable: A segmentation approach. Transport Environ J. 2014;31:1-12.
[5]Stephens JC, Wilson EJ, Peterson TR. Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75(8):1224-46.
[6]Behague D, Tawiah C, Rosato M, Some T, Morrison J. Evidence-based policy-making: The implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(10):1539-46.
[7]Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (Editors). The Oxford handbook of public policy (Oxford Handbooks of Political Science). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
[8]Phaal R, Muller G. An architectual framework for roadmappin: Towards visual strategy. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2009;76(1):39-49.
[9]Lall S. Structural adjustment and African industry. World Dev. 1995;23(12):2019-31.
[10]Cagnin C, Keenan M. Positioning future-oriented technology analysis. In: Cagnin C, Keenan M, Johnston R, Scapolo F, Barré R. Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.
[11]Eriksson EA, Weber KM. Adaptive foresight: Navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75(4):462-82.
[12]Amazt IH, Idris AR. Lecturers’ Satisfaction towards University Management & Decision-making Styles in some Malaysian Public Universities. Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:3957-70.
[13]Bell S, Morse S. Towards an understanding of how policy making groups use indicators. Ecol Indic. 2013;35:13-23.
[14]Craig LE, Smith LN. The interaction between policy and education using stroke as an example. Nurse Educ Today. 2008;28(1):77-84.
[15]Stone N. Evaluating inter professional education: The tautological need for interdisciplinary approaches. J Interprof Care. 2006;20(3):260-75.
[16]Lundvall BA, Borrás S. Science, technology and innovation policy. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR. (Editors). The Oxford Hand Book of Innovation. London: Oxford Handbooks Online; 2006.
[17]Akbarian M, Dorri B. Strategic planning and information technology in University. Pub Manag J. 2010;4:63-82. [Persian]
[18]Bales BL. Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teach Teacher Educ. 2006;22(4):395-407.
[19]Blignaut AS, Hinostroza JE, Els CJ, Brun M. ICT in education policy and practice in developing countries: South Africa and Chile compared through SITES 2006. Comput Educ. 2010;55(4):1552-63.
[20]Bradbard D, Peters C, Caneva Y. Web accessibility policies at land-grant universities. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(4):258-66.
[21]Titova N, Shutov A. Predictive Model of Strategic Development of a University. Comput Sci J. 2014;31:459-67.
[22]Zakersalehi Gh, Zakersalehi A. An evaluation of educational manager’s view about independent university in Iran. Iran High Educ Assoc J. 2010;3(1):33-59. [Persian]