پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 960 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,934 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,425,817 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,544,738 |
معناشناسی قدرت در فرایند پژوهش دانشگاهی :تحلیلی پدیدارشناسانه از تجارب دانشجویان و فارغ‌التحصیلان دانشگاه تهران | ||
| اندیشه های نوین تربیتی | ||
| دوره 17، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 60، شهریور 1400، صفحه 113-151 اصل مقاله (630.85 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jontoe.2021.29457.2911 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رامین نجفی1؛ اباصلت خراسانی2؛ محمود حقانی* 3؛ محمود ابوالقاسمی4 | ||
| 1گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه آموزش عالی دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استادیار گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران | ||
| 4دانشگاه شهید بهشتی- دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان شناسی- گروه رهبری و توسعه | ||
| چکیده | ||
| با توجه به اینکه روابط قدرت در پژوهشهای دانشگاهی به‌ویژه پژوهشهای گروهی و تیمی غیرقابل‌انکار است، شناسایی معانی قدرت در فرایند پژوهش با بهره‌گیری از تجارب دانشجویان و فارغ‌التحصیلان، هدف پژوهش حاضر بوده است. ازآنجایی‌که اکتشاف و توصیف تجربیات دانشجویان و فارغ‌التحصیلان از معنا و مفهوم قدرت در فرایند پژوهش هدف این پژوهش بوده است، طرح پژوهش، کیفی است. در این پژوهش، دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی جامعه پژوهش را تشکیل داده‌اند؛ زیرا دانشجویان عمدتاً هدف قدرت اساتید قرار می‌گیرند. روش نمونه‌گیری پژوهش حاضر، روش نمونه‌گیری غیر هدفمند و از نوع معیار (ملاک محور) است. بر این اساس، دانشجویان و فارغ‌التحصیلانی در این پژوهش مشارکت داده شدند که معیار تجربه پژوهش مشترک، در دسترس بودن و موافقت با انجام مصاحبه را داشته باشند. با 19 دانشجو و فارغ‌التحصیل دانشگاه تهران مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته صورت پذیرفته است. به‌منظور تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها از روش تجزیه‌وتحلیل استیوک-کولایزی-کین استفاده‌شده است. مشارکت طولانی‌مدت و پیوسته پژوهشگر در امر پژوهش، پرهیز از نتیجه‌گیری زودهنگام و بازنگری همکاران پژوهش، مهم‌ترین اقدامات پژوهشگران به‌منظور تحقق روایی و پایایی یافته‌های پژوهش بوده است. به اعتقاد دانشجویان و فارغ‌التحصیلان، قدرت در فرایند پژوهش، می‌تواند مثبت، منفی و حتی خنثی تلقی شود، همچنین می‌تواند هدایت‌گر یا بازدارنده باشد. اخلاق، آزادی عمل، کنترل آشکار، کنترل پنهان، مسئولیت‌ناپذیری، نفوذ، همکاری و حمایت و هدایت به‌عنوان معانی قدرت در فرایند پژوهش شناخته‌شده‌اند. بر اساس یافته‌های پژوهش، با توجه عدم تجربه مثبت در مورد نفوذ ناظران پژوهشی بر دانشجویان، به‌منظور مدیریت کارآمد فرایند پژوهش به آنان پیشنهاد می‌شود سبک‌های رهبری را در این فرایند مدنظر قرار دهند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| قدرت؛ پژوهش؛ نظارت پژوهشی؛ دانشگاه؛ پدیدارشناسی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Semantics of Power in the Academic Research Process: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Experiences of Students and Graduates of Tehran University | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ramin Najafi1؛ Abasalt Khorasani2؛ Mahmoud Haghani3؛ Mahmod Abolghasemi4 | ||
| 1Department of Higher Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Higher Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Department of Higher Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran | ||
| 4Associate Professor Department of Education, Shahide Beheshti University (SBU), Tehran, IRAN | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract Since power relations in academic research, especially group and team research, are undeniable, identifying the semantics of power in the research process using the experiences of students and graduates has been the purpose of this study. The research design was qualitative using the descriptive phenomenological method. In order to collect qualitative data, in-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 students and graduates of Tehran University using Criterion-based sampling strategy. In order to analyze the data, the Stokes- Colaizzi-Kane analysis method was used. Based on research findings, ethics, freedom of action, explicit control, latent control, irresponsibility, influence, cooperation and support and guidance have been identified as meanings of power in the research process. According to the findings, due to the lack of positive experience of research supervisors' influence on students, the weakness of research leadership in the academic research process is evident. Introduction Power does not have a fixed form or substance; rather, it is a number of dynamic and heterogeneous relationships (Flohr, 2016). Because of this dynamic as well as its obviousness, there is no consistent and comprehensive definition of power (Bundy-Fazioli, et al, 2013; Pfeffer, 2003). Thus, according to Dahl, some students think that the whole study of power is a "bottomless swamp" (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). This makes power inherently important and sensitive, especially in complex and relation-based organizations such as universities. Academic research, especially group research, is one of the areas of the university where power is clearly seen; because in these researches, actors are different in terms of identity, position, abilities, personality types, desires and aspirations. Thus, power relations and inequalities in this process are its inherent features (Louw & Fouche, 1999; Barretta-Herman & Garrett, 2000; Hemer, 2012). Various research findings show that power in the research process can be considered as a fundamental problem. Research Findings by Louw and Fouche (1999), Barretta-Herman and Garrett (2000), Bennett and Taylor (2003), Sandler and Russell (2005), Street et al. (2010), Izadinia (2014), Bozeman and Youtie (2016) , As well as Macfarlane (2017) show that the power and position of individuals can influence decisions related to the authorship credit, the order of authors, the exclusion of authors and the inclusion of guest authors in a study and lead them to immoral paths. Thus, on the one hand, there is no consensus on the definition of power, and on the other hand, the research process as one of the manifestations of social relations in higher education is an action-based situation that is influenced by the power of individuals and their tendency to abuse it. Therefore, in this research, we have decided to identify the meaning of power in the research process based on the views and experiences of students and graduates. Methodology The present study is of practical type due to the applicability of its data in policy making and planning of higher education in Iran. Since the exploration and description of the experiences of students and graduates from the exercise of power in the research process has been the purpose of the research, the research plan is qualitative. In this research, the researcher seeks to describe the common features of the experiences of students and graduates and tries to extract these features from the research experiences that they express based on communication and interaction with them. Therefore, it seems that the most appropriate research method for the present study is phenomenology; because phenomenology is a study of human experience and the ways in which things reveal themselves to us through that experience (Sokolowski, 2005). Given that the researcher conceives of power relations as a somewhat unknown phenomenon or entity that needs to describe its features, therefore, the phenomenological approach of Moustakas (1994), which is a descriptive approach, is more appropriate, which includes four main processes: Preparation for data collection; Collecting data; Organize, analyze and combine data; And summary, implications and findings. In this study, students and graduate students and graduates have formed the study population; because they are mainly the power target of actors in the process of academic research. Research sampling method is non-purposive and criterion-based. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 students and graduates of the University of Tehran. In order to realize the validity of the research, measures such as long-term and continuous participation of the researcher in the research, avoiding early conclusions and reviewing the research colleagues have been done. To make the findings more reliable, the data collection and analysis process is accurately described, the data is presented in written and visual form, and the researcher again refers to the relevant research literature. Also, in order to analyze the data, Stokes-Colaizzi-Kane analysis method was used. Results Using direct and indirect questions, researchers sought the meaning and perception of students and graduates of the University of Tehran from the power of their research experiences. In answer to this question, students and graduates have identified power in the research process as a concept that can be positive, negative and even neutral, as well as guiding or deterrent. Based on the content analysis of the data, power in research experiences means ethics, freedom of action, explicit control, latent control, irresponsibility, influence, cooperation, and support and guidance. Table 1 shows these themes with the themes describing them. Conclusion Since power or ability to emerge and reveal needs to influence the target of power, the closest and most important meaning to power is the concept of influence. Therefore, it is very difficult to distinguish between the two concepts. Traces of this concept can be seen in many definitions (including Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). But the important point is that since the concept of leadership is deeply related to the influence of others, due to the lack of positive experience about the influence of student research Supervisors, the weakness of research leadership in the academic research process is evident. According to the research findings, the following practical suggestions are presented: Holding faculty development workshops focusing on student supervision and guidance styles; Establish institutional mechanisms to monitor the performance of supervisors, advisors and referees; Feasibility study and implementation of an institution to support victims of bullying in the research process. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Power, Research, Immoral authorship, University, Phenomenology | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adib, Y., Fathi Azar, E. & Molaghalghachi, S. (2015). Studying the Experiences of Tabriz University Professors and Students with regard to Research Ethics: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Strategy for culture, 8 (29): 149-178 (Text in Persian). Amin Khandaghi, M. & Pak mehr, H. (2013). Education of Standards of Research Ethics: The Undeniable Necessity of Higher Education Curricula, the Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology, 7(4): 1-12 (Text in Persian). Arendt, H. (1986). Communicative power. Power: 59-74. Aron, R. (1986). Macht, Power, Puissance: Democratic Prose or Demoniacal Poetry? Power: 253-277. Asadi, A., Eghbali, J. & Roustaee, M. (2017). Influsing factors on choosing supervisors from postgraduates' viewpoints in Agricultural Economic & Development College at Tehran University with Grounded Theory Approach. Journal of Agricultural Education Administration Research, 9(42)” 59-73 (Text in Persian). Asghari, F. & Nemati, M. A. (2016). The Challenge of the Quality of PhD Thesis in Iran (based on the Concept of Value Chain). Iranian Journal of Cultural Research, 9 (2): 191-159 (Text in Persian). Barksdale, M. M. (2008). Power and leader effectiveness in organizations: a literature review. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey CA, Monterey. Barretta-Herman, A. L., & Garrett, K. J. (2000). Faculty-student collaboration: Issues and recommendations. Advances in Social Work, 1(2): 148-159. Bazargan, A. (2010). Introduction to Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods. Tehran: Didar Publications (Text in Persian). Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3): 263-270. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Dynamics of the system (Vol. 2). Stylus Publishing, LLC. Botas, P. C. P., & Huisman, J. (2012). (De) constructing power in higher education governance structures: an analysis of representation and roles in governing bodies. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(4): 370-388. Botas, P. C. P. (2004). Students' perceptions of teachers' pedagogical styles in Higher Education. The journal of doctoral research in education, 4(1): 16-30. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Theory of Action: Practical Reasons and Rational Choice, Tehran: Picture Publication (Text in Persian). Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2016). Trouble in paradise: Problems in academic research co-authoring. Science and engineering ethics, 22(6): 1717-1743. Bundy-Fazioli, K., Quijano, L. M., & Bubar, R. (2013). Graduate students' perceptions of professional power in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(1): 108-121. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. Dahl, R. (1986). Power as the Control of Behavior. Power: 37-58. Doloriert, C., Sambrook, S., & Stewart, J. (2012). Power and emotion in doctoral supervision: implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(7): 732-750. Fairholm, G. (2003). Power politics in organizational life: Tactics in organizational leadership. Organizational Influence Processes: 33-43. Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2: 678-692. Flohr, M. (2016). Regicide and resistance: Foucault's reconceptualization of power. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 17(1): 38-56. Ford, R., & Johnson, C. (1998). The perception of power: Dependence and legitimacy in conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly: 16-32. Foucault, M. (1986). Disciplinary Power and Subjection. Power: 229-242. French, J. R. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Cartwright, studies in social power: 150-167. Galang, M. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Human resource department power and influence through symbolic action. Organizational Influence Processes: 74-95. Galbraith, J. K. (1986). Power and Organization. Power: 211-228. Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3): 311-325. Goldman, J. K. (1986). Toward a Theory of Social Power. Power: 156-202. Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A., & Johnston, M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional psychology: Research and practice, 23(3): 203-210. Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 24(2): 175-190. Hearn, J. C., & Anderson, M. S. (2002). Conflict in academic departments: An analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43 (5): 503-529. Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6): 827-839. Izadinia, M. (2014). Authorship: The hidden voices of postgraduate TEFL students in Iran. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(4): 317-331. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3): 267-281. Lenski, G. (1986). Power and privilege. Power: 243-251. Louw, D. A., & Fouche, J. B. (1999). Authorship credit in supervisor-student collaboration: Assessing the dilemma in psychology. South African Journal of Psychology, 29(3): 145-148. Macfarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in higher education, 42(7): 1194-1210. McLeod, J. (2011). Student voice and the politics of listening in higher education. Critical studies in education, 52(2): 179-189. Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly: 349-364. Moeini Shahraki, H., Torkzadeh, J., Mohammadi, M., Khademi, M. (2012). A Survey of Relationship between Organizational Structure Types and Administrators' Power Resources at Shiraz University's Administration division. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 18(66): 165-193 (Text in Persian). Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage. Nabavi, A. (2000). Philosophy of Power. Tehran: SAMT Publications (Text in Persian). Navabakhsh, M. & Karimi, F. (2009). Exploring the Concept of Power in Michel Foucault's Theories. Journal of Political Studies. 1 (3): 49-63 (Text in Persian). Omisore, B. O., & Nweke, A. N. (2014). The influence of power and politics in organizations (Part 1). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(7): 2222-6990. Parsons, T. (1986). Power and the social system. Power: 94-143. Peiro, J. M., & Meliá, J. L. (2003). Formal and informal interpersonal power in organisations: Testing a bifactorial model of power in role‐sets. Applied Psychology, 52(1): 14-35. Pfeffer, J. (2003). Developing and exercising power and influence. Organizational influence processes: 15-32. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (2003). The politics of upward influence in organizations. Organizational influence processes: 431-445. Porter, L. W., Angle, H. L., & Allen, R. W. (2003). Influence, power, and politics in organizational settings. Organizational influence processes” 3-13. Poulantzas, N. (1986). Class power, Power: 144-155. Rashidi, Z. (2019). Identifying the Challenges of Social Development in the Faculty Members of Tehran's Comprehensive Universities: Examining the Phenomenon bullying. Scds, 7 (3): 89-115 (Text in Persian) . Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of social issues and public policy, 8(1): 1-22. Robertson, M. J. (2017). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2): 358-371. Russell, B. (1986). The forms of power. Power: 19-27. Safaei Movahhed, S. (2017). Under the Skin of University: Uncovering Academic Exploitation in Iranian Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 8 (15): 34-7 (Text in Persian). Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & behavior, 15(1): 65-80. Sokolowski, R. (2005). Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by Mohammad Reza Ghorbani. Tehran: New Step Publications (Text in Persian). Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9): 1458-1465. Taylor, Peter & Boser, Susan (2006). Power and Transformation in Higher Education Institutions: Challenges for Change. IDS Bulletin, 37(6): 111-121. Weber, M. (2015). Economics and Society. Translated by Abbas Manouchehri, Mehrdad Torabi Nejad & Mostafa Emadzadeh. Tehran: SAMT Publications (Text in Persian). Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2014). Examiner practices and culturally inflected doctoral theses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2): 190-205. Yamani, M. (2012). Quality in higher education. Tehran: SAMT Publications (Text in Persian). Yarigholi, B. (2018). Pathology of Academic Research Ethics: A Phenomenological Study. Ethics in science and Technology, 13 (1):127-134 (Text in Persian). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 466 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 418 |
||
