پاسخگویی در بستر تحولات آموزش عالی | ||
| مطالعات میان رشته ای اخلاق | ||
| دوره 1، شماره 1، فروردین 1404، صفحه 193-220 اصل مقاله (1.47 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jiethics.2025.240061.1008 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| مریم برادران حقیر* | ||
| گروه معارف اسلامی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه امام صادق(ع)، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این مقاله به بررسی پاسخگویی در بستر تحولات آموزش عالی و دانشگاهها در جهان و ایران میپردازد. در این مسیر، تحولات مهم اثرگذار شناسایی شدهاند که عبارتند از: 1). تحولات علم و فناوری و زیرشاخه آن، انقلابهای صنعتی و تأثیر آن بر ظهور برنامههای آموزشی جدید؛ 2). افزایش تقاضای اجتماعی برای تحصیل و تودهای شدن آموزش عالی؛ 3). ایده دانشگاه کارآفرین، بازاریسازی و خصوصیسازی آموزش عالی؛ 4). ارتباط جامعه و صنعت با دانشگاه؛ 5). تضمین کیفیت و رتبهبندی آموزش عالی؛ 6). مسئولیت اجتماعی که شامل مواجهه با مسائل جهانی و رعایت خیر عمومی است و پاسخگویی را به سطح تصمیمگیری و حکمرانی با رعایت اخلاق و حقوق میبرد. در عصر کنونی، که پارادایم توسعه پایدار مشروعیت دانشگاه را در انجام مسئولیت اجتماعی آن میبیند، پاسخگویی نیازمند نگاهی متفاوت است؛ به این معنا که آموزش عالی، دانشگاه و دانشگاهیان باید در تعادلیابی در اکوسیستم خود، با رعایت اصول اخلاقی به ارائه خدمات مؤثر در سطوح محلی، منطقهای، ملی و بینالمللی بپردازند و در زیستبوم خود پاسخگو و بالنده باشند؛ در چنین رویکردی، پذیرش تغییرات در نظام آموزش عالی با فهم موقعیت، توضیح روندها، تلاش برای بهبود و تعالی فرآیندها و سازوکارها و همراهی خلاقانه با زمینه اجتماعی ممکن و سازگار است، بدون آنکه اصول اخلاقی مأموریت دانشگاه خدشهدار شود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| پاسخگویی؛ مسئولیت اجتماعی؛ آموزش عالی؛ خیر عمومی؛ توسعه پایدار | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Accountability in the context of higher education evolutions | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Maryam Baradaran Haghir | ||
| Department of Islamic Education and EducationalSciences, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: The basis for addressing accountability in higher education is related to the nature of this influential institution; higher education is a subsystem within society that is in a reciprocal relationship with it and other subsystems. Therefore, any change within this subsystem signals changes within the international, national, and local community. From this perspective, when it comes to accountability in higher education, recognizing the internal changes in this subsystem is accompanied by understanding external changes. For this reason, in this article, accountability in the context of higher education in the world and Iran is explored with the approach of what the recent important social changes and trends have been and what their relationship is with higher education; so that by critically examining the form, content, and orientation of those factors in the context of time, a picture of the accountability process in higher education from the past to the present can be drawn, perhaps providing a way to picture its future in a way that the higher education institution, as a committed social institution, considers accountability as a virtue. In the view of accountability as a virtue, the position of higher education as an actor, its relationship with what connections, and the subject matter and context in which it is questioned determine the concept and method of accountability and its elements in the formal and informal structure. Findings: A) Science and technology developments and higher education: Science and technology are not two independent and unrelated components in the development process. Today, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a concept that has been discussed. The integration and combined effects of several exponential technologies have shaped this revolution, and as a result, the curriculum from school to university is evolving. The exact effects of such fourth-cycle technologies on society and the planet are still unknown. But the fact that deep and rapid changes are on the way seems certain. Since the social impacts or destructive environmental damage of the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are hidden from us, the need for higher education to respond is essential. B) Social demand for education and the massification of higher education: Today, elite higher education has evolved into inclusive higher education, and the development of the learning community has been postponed to the simultaneous quantitative expansion and qualitative improvement of access to higher-level learning. In such a system, higher education loses its original meaning and becomes a continuation of education. Therefore, higher education must respond to the balance between massification and protection from the deviation of the university mission. C) The idea of the entrepreneurial university and the marketization of higher education: the entrepreneurial university was supposed to respond to the needs of households, businesses, and the government, and its realization requires two-way interaction: the university is in touch with society and business, creating employment, producing knowledge, and transferring it in appropriate ways to the stakeholders and the university's social responsibility. The community must also feel responsible for the university so that the cycle of systemic vision and the importance of the environment in advancing the goals of the entrepreneurial university is not flawed, because the entrepreneurial university is a network and has many relationships with its contacts and fellow entrepreneurs and industries, and with all types of individuals and groups related to innovation and growth. It needs more ability to respond to real needs; therefore, innovations must be brought to the market, and innovation and entrepreneurship must be presented in fundamental ways in universities. D) Society, industry and higher education: The importance of responding to the needs of industry has been and continues to be such that it has led to changes in educational courses in higher education institutions and their creation or dissolution, and countries have had different experiences based on their own requirements. Diversity between syllabi or implementation methods, continuous monitoring and modification of educational and research courses to change requirements, reduce undesirable consequences, quality assurance for competitiveness and response to the needs of society today are among the reasons that lead to the diversity of postgraduate courses, and research, which is a strategic point in knowledge-based societies, is one of the sensitive points of focus on these courses. In global experience, the labour market situation, industry needs and the demand for cooperation from the demand side are the main drivers of PhD courses and applied research, and they have often been supported by government policies. Although the connection with industry brings the opportunity to impact the local region and economy, enrich financial flows, increase innovation and create jobs for students, there are concerns about the impact of this approach on the core mission of university research. E) Quality assurance and ranking of higher education: The universality of higher education and the constraints on public spending have increased the sensitivity of stakeholders to the quality of higher education and its added value. Quality assurance bodies, which are accountable to institutions and the public, must ensure that experienced education providers provide a good standard in order to maintain trust in the national and international education system. F) Accountability and the horizons ahead: The mission of universities is not limited to creating and sharing knowledge with students, companies and society at large. Universities have a moral responsibility to work for the common good and to find solutions to important global issues. This overarching mission and the goal of positively impacting society with respect for all stakeholders are embedded in the concept of university social responsibility. Universities therefore need to implement policies and procedures that ensure transparency and accountability in their decision-making and governance processes. Discussion: The university is a social institution that must voluntarily and enthusiastically regain its lost responsibility and, by descending from the ivory tower, listen to the silenced voices and unknown needs in society and, with knowledge and wisdom, find the appropriate way to serve itself at any time. Only then will accountability, as a social concept and constructed by society, go beyond the artificial duality of virtue and mechanism and provide its appropriate service by finding a balance in the ecosystem in which it breathes. In such a definition, for example, the universalization or marketization of higher education will not necessarily contradict the norms of the institution of science; provided that the institution of science moves from aristocracy to accepting social orders and becomes sensitive to social needs. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Accountability, social responsibility, higher education, public good, sustainable development | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
آراسته، ح.ر. (1383). خصوصیسازی. در بروس دی. جانستون (صص376-378). دایره المعارف آموزش عالی، جلد اول. تهران: بنیاد دانشنامه بزرگ فارسی.
آلتباخ، ف. ج.، ریزبرگ، ل. ر.، رامبلی، ل. ا. (1393). روندهای آموزش عالی جهانی: رهگیری یک انقلاب دانشگاهی؛ گزارش کنفرانس جهانی آموزش عالی یونسکو در سال 2009. ترجمه: محمدرضا سعیدآبادی و پروین احمدخانلو. تهران: مؤسسه پژوهش و برنامهریزی آموزش عالی.
بازرگان، ع.، فتحآبادی، ج.، عینالهی، ع. (1379). رویکرد مناسب ارزیابی درونی برای ارتقای مستمر کیفیت گروههای آموزشی در دانشگاههای علوم پزشکی. مجله روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی، 5(2)، 1-26
باقری نوعپرست، خ. (1391). تأملی بر روابط فرهنگ بازار و دانشگاه. علوم تربیتی، 19(2)، 7-22.
برادران، م.، طایی، ح. (1395). دانشگاه کارآفرین؛ نیاز اقتصاد امروز. راهبرد توسعه، 45، 60–86.
برادران، م. (1398). سیاستپژوهی دکتری پژوهشمحور. تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق.
بوک، د. ک. (1398). مسئولیت اجتماعی دانشگاه: رسالت دانشگاه در جهان پیچیده امروز، ترجمه آرمین امیر، علی پاپلی یزدی و مریم عالمزاده، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
حسینیمقدم، م. (1400). روندهای جهانی علم و فناوری، راهبردها و اولویتهای آیندهپژوهی آموزش عالی در ایران. آیندهپژوهی ایران، 6(2)، 1–28. https://doi.org/10.30479/JFS.2022.16183.1332
حمیدیمطلق، ر.، اسماعیلزاده، م.، سلیمانی، س.، یوسفی، ا.، اشعاری، م. (1398). مروری اجمالی بر گزارش آینده آموزش عالی– بررسی مگاترندهای آموزش عالی، تهیه شده در مؤسسه ADL–2016. سیاست علم و فناوری، 9(3)، 103–117. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.24767220.1398.09.3.8.6
صالحی، ص.، پازوکینژاد ز. (1393). آموزش عالی پایدار و پایداری محیط زیست. آموزش عالی ایران. ۱۳۹۳; ۶ (۲). http://ihej.ir/article-1-571-fa.html
فراستخواه، م. (1387[الف]). بررسی چگونگی ارتقای کمی و کیفی دسترسی به آموزش عالی در ایران. آموزش عالی ایران، 1(2)، 95–122. https://www.sid.ir/paper/135852/fa
فراستخواه، م. (1387[ب]). بررسی تأثیر فرآیند ارزیابی درونی بر برنامهریزی بهبود کیفیت گروههای آموزشی دانشگاهی؛ تحلیل مقایسهای از نظر اجرا یا عدم اجرای ارزیابی درونی، فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامهریزی آموزشعالی، 49(3)، 145-175.
فراستخواه، م. (1388). دانشگاه ایرانی و مسئله کیفیت. تهران: آگاه.
فراستخواه، م. (1396). گاه و بیگاهی دانشگاه در ایران. تهران: آگاه.
فریدونی، س. (1396). گسترش کمی آموزش عالی با تأکید بر پیامدهای اجتماعی؛ نظریهای داده بنیاد. پژوهش و برنامهریزی آموزش عالی، 23(4)، 69–96. https://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article_702938.html
فریدونی، س. (1399). ارزشآفرینی برای آموزش عالی با عبور از بحرانهای عصر تودهگرایی. نوآوری و ارزشآفرینی، 8(16)، 77–98. http://rahbord-mag.ir/ar/Article/8173/FullText
گزارش بانک جهانی: آموزش عالی در کشورهای در حال توسعه، بیمها و امیدها (2000). ترجمه: فاطمه باقریان و عصمت فاضلی (1387). تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
ظفریپور، ط.، محمدی، ر.، رحیمی، ب. (1398). بررسی تحلیلی و تطبیقی نظام ارزشیابی کیفیت در کشورهای ایران، اردن و فرانسه. دومین کنفرانس بینالمللی و سیزدهمین کنفرانس ملی ارزیابی کیفیت در نظامهای دانشگاهی، شیراز.
کلچن، ر. (1400). پاسخگویی آموزش عالی. ترجمه: زهرا حیدری و مریم یاوریکیا، تهران: آوای نور.
کیوانی، ج.، فراستخواه، م. (1381). فرآیند اطمینان از کیفیت آموزش عالی: سنخشناسی تجارب جهانی در اختیارات. پنجاه و یکمین نشست رؤسای دانشگاهها و مراکز علمی و تحقیقاتی، شیراز.
محمدی، ح.، زیباکلام، ف. (1398). نولیبرالیسم و خیزش پاسخگویی در دانشگاه. فصلنامه راهبرد فرهنگ، 45، 127-149. https://doi.org/10.22034/JSFC.2019.103797
مردیها، م. (1381). انتظارات از دانشگاه انبوه. تهران: دفتر مطالعات و برنامهریزی فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
همتی، ر. (1392). تودهای شدن آموزش عالی و زندگی دانشگاهی در ایران: تأملی در تجربیات زیستی دانشگاهیان. مدیریت در دانشگاه اسلامی، 2(1)، 127-156. https://miu.nahad.ir/article_37.html
یزدانپور، ا. (1388). دانشگاه اجتماعی: تولید و توزیع دانش در جوامع دانایی. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
یونسکو، ا. (1375). در چالش توسعه. ترجمه: محمد فاضلی. نامه پژوهش، پیش شماره 1، 141–159.
https://ensani.ir/fa/article/280910
Anderson, Th. (2008). The future of University in Europe. In The future of the research university: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century (pp. 38-47). Kauffman Foundation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1352645 Beerkens-Soo, M., & Vossensteyn, H. (2009). Higher education issues and trends from an international perspective. Report prepared for the Veerman Committee. Bokova, I. (2016). Foreword. In A. Baskaran, UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000235406 Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x Bovens, M. (2010). Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946-967. Charon, A., & Wauters, J. P. (2008). University ranking: A new tool for the evaluation of higher education in Europe. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 23(1), 62-64. Crow, M. M. (2008). Building an Entrepreneurial University. In The future of the research university: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century (pp. 11-30). Kauffman Foundation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1352645 Deer, C. (2002). The expansion of higher education: Economic necessity or hyper-inflation, Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, Retrieved from; Dougherty, K.J., & Natow, S.N. (2019). Analysing neoliberalism in theory and practice: The case of performancebased funding for higher education (Center for Global Higher Education Working paper No. 44). Retrieved from Community College Research Center website: Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). A triple helix of university—Industry—Government relations: Introduction. Industry and Higher Education, 12(4), 197-201. Farasatkhah, M., & Ghazi-Tabatabaei, M. (2009). Quality Challenge in Iran’s Higher Education: Structural Obstacle and Socio-Cultural and Political Contexts. “A Cognitive Map” for Change Agents in Developing Countries. In INTED2009 Proceedings (pp. 1882-1894). IATED. Hazelkorn, E. (2017). Civic Universities and Engaged Citizens: What is the role of higher education in the age of populism? Centre for Global Higher Education, Higher Education Policy Research Unit. Holister, M. (2017). The Project: Theoretical Framework and Global Institutional Experience. In D. T. L. Daniel, R. Shek, & M. Hollister (Eds.), University Social Responsibility Quality of Life; A Global Survey of Concepts and Experiences (Chapter 1). Springer. Lee, Y. S. (1995). ‘Technology Transfer’ and the research university: A research for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843-863. Macheridis, N., & Paulsson, A. (2021). Tracing accountability in higher education. Research in Education, 110(1), 78-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523721993143 Matas, C. P. (2012). Doctoral education and skills development: An international perspective. REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 10(2), 163-191. Miotto, G., Martín, F. D., & Feito, C. D. C. (2020). Governance, ethics and accountability in universities strategic plans. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 11, 209-235. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7706300 Penprase, B. E. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution and higher education. In Higher education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution (pp. 207-229), Edited by Nancy W. Gleason, Yale-NUS College. Singapore Pte Ltd. Prisacariu, A. (2015). New perspectives of quality assurance in european higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 119-126. QAA: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). Report of Doctoral Degree Characteristics. Available at www.qaa.ac.ir Romzek, B.S., (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1): 21–44. Saad, M., Guermat, C., & Boutifour, Z. (2021). The interaction between academia and industry and its impact on national innovation capacity: The case of Algeria. Industry and Higher Education, 35(5), 570-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220931418 Scott, P. (1995). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Sinclair A (1995) The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting Organizations and Society 20(2–3): 219–237. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2010). Accountability: Understandings and challenges. In Accountability in Higher Education (pp. 23-38). Routledge. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016). Accountability of university: Transition of public higher education. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(1), 9-21. Trow, M. (2007). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In International handbook of higher education (pp. 243-280). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Williams, R.; Cochrane, A. (2010). The Role of Higher Education in Social and Cultural Transformation; The Open University: London, UK. Wolter, A. (2013). Massification and Diversity: Has the Expansion of Higher Education Led to a Changing Composition of the Student Body? In Higher Education Reforms: Looking Back – Looking Forward. 10th International Workshop on Higher Education Reform (HER), 2–4 October 2013 (pp. 202-221). Ljubljana: HIS. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 115 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 80 |
||