Volume 35, Issue 3 (Autumn 2022)
JMDP 2022, 35(3): 57-97 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nasri S, Farazkish M. Evaluating the Performance of the Quantitative Goals of Higher Education in the Sixth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan. JMDP 2022; 35 (3) :57-97
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4456-en.html
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4456-en.html
1- Department of Politics and Research Sciences, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran , nasri@nrisp.ac.ir
2- Department Technology & Innovation Policy, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran
2- Department Technology & Innovation Policy, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1132 Views)
Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the achievement of goals and the quantitative indicators of higher education focusing on capacity building and human resource development according to the Sixth Development Plan and at the same time, highlighting key lessons as to the preparation of documents for the Seventh Development Plan.
Methodology: Using the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology together with prescriptive orientation, this study applied the case study research method and documentary study to evaluate the outcomes of higher education in the Sixth Development Plan. In terms of data collection and analysis, independent samples of T-test and bibliographic method based on indexing were performed.
Findings: The findings of the study indicate that conceptually all indicators in the higher education sector have been input and/or output-oriented; however, effectiveness and outcomes have not been considered. In terms of performance review, such indicators as "share of non-governmental university students", "ratio of full-time faculty members including assistant professor and higher ranks to the total of full-time faculty members in universities affiliated to the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology", as well as "number of Iranian university branches abroad" are all in a good condition; Nevertheless, the indicators "share of foreign students", "number of postgraduate students in departments of Basic Sciences" and "share of skills training" are not satisfactory.
Originality: Applying index-based and outcome-based model, the performance of the quantitative goals of higher education under the Sixth Development Plan has been evaluated for the first time in Iran. Accordingly, the research results provide policy implications for policymakers so that they may consider a more diverse range of indicators in different performance dimensions.
Methodology: Using the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology together with prescriptive orientation, this study applied the case study research method and documentary study to evaluate the outcomes of higher education in the Sixth Development Plan. In terms of data collection and analysis, independent samples of T-test and bibliographic method based on indexing were performed.
Findings: The findings of the study indicate that conceptually all indicators in the higher education sector have been input and/or output-oriented; however, effectiveness and outcomes have not been considered. In terms of performance review, such indicators as "share of non-governmental university students", "ratio of full-time faculty members including assistant professor and higher ranks to the total of full-time faculty members in universities affiliated to the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology", as well as "number of Iranian university branches abroad" are all in a good condition; Nevertheless, the indicators "share of foreign students", "number of postgraduate students in departments of Basic Sciences" and "share of skills training" are not satisfactory.
Originality: Applying index-based and outcome-based model, the performance of the quantitative goals of higher education under the Sixth Development Plan has been evaluated for the first time in Iran. Accordingly, the research results provide policy implications for policymakers so that they may consider a more diverse range of indicators in different performance dimensions.
Keywords: Higher Education Performance, Quantitative Goals of the Sixth Development Plan, Capacity Building and Development of Human Resources, Article 66 of the Sixth Development Plan, Higher Education Evaluation.
Type of Study: Research |
Received: Apr 19 2022 | Accepted: Aug 27 2022 | ePublished: Mar 13 2023
Received: Apr 19 2022 | Accepted: Aug 27 2022 | ePublished: Mar 13 2023
References
1. Azar, A., Gholamrezai, D., Danaifard, H., & Khodada Hosseini, H. (2013). An Analysis of Quality Challenges of Higher Education; Case: The Fifth Development Plan. Strategy for Culture, 6(21), 139-171. [http://www.jsfc.ir/article_15414.html?lang=en]
2. Barakpour, N. (2009). Internal Evaluation: A Tool for Quality Assessment of University Departments Case Study: Internal Evaluation of the Urban Planning Department of Art University. Higher Education Letter, 1(4), 65-87. [http://journal.sanjesh.org/article_29833.html]
3. Booshehri, A., & Bagheri, A. (2016). Science and Technology Policy Assessment (Case Study on Elite Conscripts Working in Research Projects). Journal of Management Improvement, 10(3), 107-129. [http://www.behboodmodiriat.ir/article_43145.html]
4. Bouzari, S. (2015). Spatial Analysis Approach in the Trend of Higher Education Development. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 21(2), 105-128. [http://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article-1-2632-fa.html]
5. Bozorgnezhad, A., & Sharifzadeh, F. (2016). Study and Impact of Implementation of Iran's Higher Education Policies on the Evaluation of Third, Fourth and Fifth Development Plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Performance of the Ministry of Science and Research and Technology. Journal of Research in Educational Science, 10(33), 119-170. [http://www.jiera.ir/article_49514.html?lang=en]
6. Cooksy, L. J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P. A. (2001). The Program Logic Model as an Integrative Framework for a Multimethod Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(2), 119-128. [DOI:10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00003-9]
7. Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Antunes, J. A. V. (2015). Design Science Research: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-07374-3]
8. European Environment Agency (2017). EEA Guidance Document-Policy Evaluation. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gorm-Dige/publication/317594615_EEA]
9. Freidson, E., & Rist, R. (2020). Program Evaluation and the Management of Government: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780429338380]
10. Gasper, D. (2017). Policy Evaluation: From Managerialism and Econocracy to a Governance Perspective. In International Development Governance (pp. 655-670): Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315092577-37]
11. Ghazinoory, S., Farazkish, M., Nasri, S., & Mardani, A. (2021). Designing a Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Evaluation Dashboard: A Comprehensive and Multidimensional Approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-19. [DOI:10.1080/09537325.2021.1990877]
12. Jafari, M., Noori, S., & Talebi, D. (2011). Factor Analysis of Effective Indicators in Comprehensive System of Performance Appraisal of Higher Education. Organizational Resources Management Researchs, 1(1), 43-64. [http://ormr.modares.ac.ir/article-28-11299-fa.html]
13. Jalaliyoon, N., & Taherdoost, H. (2012). Performance Evaluation of Higher Education; A Necessity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(1), 5682-5686. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.497]
14. Khodabakhshi, M., & Nowrouzzadeh, R. (2011). The Necessity of Considering Public Sectors' Efficiency and Productivity Measurement in Iran's Fifth Development Plan according to Power Supply Industry's Technical Efficiency Evaluation by DEA Technique. Management and Development Process, 23(2), 3-27. [http://jmdp.ir/article-1-80-fa.html]
15. Mohammadi, R., Shariati, S., Mokhtarian, F., & Karamzade, S. (2008). The Evolution of MSRT Macro- Performance Evaluation System. Higher Education Letter, 1(1), 133-167. [http://journal.sanjesh.org/article_29806.html?lang=en]
16. OECD (2018). Draft Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance. [http://www.oecd.org/gov/draft-policy-framework-on-sound-public-governance.pdf]
17. OECD-DAC (2007). Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. [https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/39249691.pdf]
18. Sajjadi, H., & Mottaghi, E. (2018). Meta-Analysis of the Performance of Iran Higher Education System with a Focus on National Development Plans. Journal of Iranian Social Development Studies, 10(3), 7-25. [https://jisds.srbiau.ac.ir/article_12748.html]
19. Shojaee, M. R. (2006). The Role of Higher Education and Research in the Forth Development Plan in Approach of Strategic Planning. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 12(48), 103-136. [https://jmsd.atu.ac.ir/article_4801.html?lang=en]
20. Smismans, S. (2015). Policy Evaluation in the EU: The Challenges of Linking Ex Ante and Ex Post Appraisal. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(1), 6-26. [DOI:10.1017/S1867299X00004244]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
