پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,291 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,128 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 23,088,868 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,587,655 |
مدل راهبردی همگرایی نهادی برای پیشرفت علمی کشور | ||
| مدیریت سازمانهای دولتی | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، اصلاح شده برای چاپ، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 28 خرداد 1405 اصل مقاله (1.57 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: اکتشافی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/ipom.2026.77809.5329 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمد جواد محمودی* 1؛ افشین سفاهن2؛ عباس قاییدرحمت3 | ||
| 1دانشیار اقتصاد،، عضو هیئت علمی، وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2استادیار، گروه جغرافیا و برنامهریزی شهری، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3دکتری تخصصی روانشناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی تهران تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| نظام آموزش عالی و علم و فناوری ایران با چالشهایی چندبعدی مانند اشتغالپذیری فارغالتحصیلان، فاصله دانشگاه و صنعت، مهاجرت نخبگان، کیفیت آموزش عالی و کارآمدی سیاستهای علمی مواجه است. حل این مسائل، به دلیل ماهیت بیننهادی آنها، نیازمند هماهنگی مؤثر میان نهادهای قانونگذار و اجرایی است. در این میان، رابطه وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری بهعنوان نهاد اجرایی تخصصی و مجلس شورای اسلامی بهعنوان نهاد قانونگذار و ناظر، نقشی تعیینکننده دارد. مسئله اصلی پژوهش، فقدان الگویی نهادمند، عملیاتی و پایدار برای ارتقای این رابطه از وضعیت سنتی «ناظر ـ مجری» به همکاری راهبردی است. هدف پژوهش، طراحی و اعتبارسنجی اولیه مدل راهبردی همگرایی نهادی برای پیشرفت علمی کشور، با تأکید بر هماهنگی و همکاری سازنده میان وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری و مجلس شورای اسلامی است. پژوهش با رویکرد کیفی و روش تحلیل اسنادی انجام شد. نمونهگیری اسناد بهصورت هدفمند و معیارمحور بود و دادهها با تحلیل مضمونی بررسی شدند. یافتهها نشان داد مدل پیشنهادی بر سه پایه اصلی استوار است: پایه فرهنگی - نگرشی شامل اعتمادسازی، زبان مشترک و احترام متقابل؛ پایه ساختاری - نهادی شامل کارگروه مشترک هماهنگی، دبیرخانه مشترک، پلتفرم دیجیتال و نظام مشاوره تخصصی؛ و پایه فرآیندی - عملیاتی شامل مشورت پیش از قانونگذاری، گزارشدهی شفاف، حل اختلاف نهادی و پایش مستمر. اعتبار اولیه مدل از طریق بازبینی خبرگانی ارزیابی شد. مدل پیشنهادی میتواند زمینه تصمیمگیری کارشناسیتر، کاهش تعارض نهادی و تقویت حکمرانی علم و فناوری را فراهم سازد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| مدل راهبردی؛ همگرایی نهادی؛ حکمرانی علم و فناوری؛ مجلس شورای اسلامی؛ آموزش عالی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Strategic Model of Institutional Convergence for the Scientific Advancement of the Country | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Javad Mahmoudi1؛ Afshin Safahan2؛ Abas Ghaeedrahmat3 | ||
| 1Associate Professor of Economics, Faculty Member, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran.Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Payame Noor University, Tehran. Iran. | ||
| 3Ph.D. Department of Psychology Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Higher education, science, and technology are strategic subsystems of national development in Iran, facing complex, multi-layered challenges (e.g., employability, university–industry gap, brain drain, quality, and knowledge-based economy). These issues require coordinated action across institutions. The Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (the main executive body) and the Iranian Parliament (with legislative, budgetary, and supervisory powers) are both key players. Yet their relationship remains largely a traditional "supervisor–executor" pattern, where Parliament demands and oversees while the Ministry responds and implements. This reactive model is inadequate for a complex field like higher education, which needs prior consultation, joint deliberation, and institutionalized conflict-resolution mechanisms. The core research problem is the lack of an operational, sustainable model to transform this relationship into a strategic partnership. Without it, interactions stay reactive, case-based, and person-centered, leading to ineffective legislation, institutional mistrust, delays, duplication, and weakened governance. Accordingly, the central question of the present study is: What strategic model can be designed to promote constructive coordination and cooperation between the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology and the Islamic Parliament of Iran in order to improve higher education governance and contribute to national scientific progress? The purpose of the study is to design and initially validate a strategic model for constructive coordination and cooperation between these two key institutions. Methodology This study was conducted using a qualitative approach and the method of documentary analysis. The research was exploratory-descriptive in its first stage and design-oriented in its second stage. In the exploratory-descriptive stage, the nature and dimensions of the communication and institutional challenges between the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology and the Islamic Parliament were identified through the review of relevant documents, laws, policy reports, and scholarly literature. In the design-oriented stage, the extracted themes were synthesized with theoretical frameworks in order to formulate a strategic and operational model. The documentary population of the study included all documents, laws, official reports, policy papers, and scientific sources related to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, higher education governance, science and technology policy, inter-organizational cooperation, conflict management, evidence-informed policy-making, parliamentary scientific advice, and parliamentary technology assessment. Since the research was based on documentary analysis, the “document” was considered the main unit of study and analysis. In this research, a document refers to any official, legal, policy-oriented, or academic text that could contribute to understanding the research problem or designing the proposed model. The sample was selected through purposive and criterion-based sampling. The documents were not selected randomly; rather, they were chosen according to their relevance and informational richness in relation to the research problem. The main inclusion criteria were direct relevance to the topic, credibility of the source, analytical or policy value, relative recency in the case of policy reports, and usefulness for extracting themes related to the cultural-attitudinal, structural-institutional, and process-operational dimensions of the model. Documents that lacked direct relevance, had no clear scientific or institutional credibility, were merely news-based, or contained repetitive content without new analytical value were excluded from the analysis. The selected documents were categorized into several groups: upstream and legal documents such as the Constitution, national vision documents, development plans, and parliamentary regulations; official and policy reports, especially those related to the Parliament Research Center and the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology; domestic academic studies on government–parliament relations, public policy, and higher education governance; and international sources on collaborative governance, inter-organizational cooperation, conflict management, scientific advice to parliament, and parliamentary technology assessment. Data were collected through library and documentary review. The main research instrument was a systematic note-taking form designed to record the source, date, publisher, key content, and the researcher’s analytical interpretation. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. This process involved repeated reading of documents, initial coding, searching for sub-themes, reviewing and refining themes, naming the final themes, and linking the extracted themes to the theoretical framework. The outputs of thematic analysis formed the basis for the initial design of the proposed model. To evaluate the initial validity of the model, expert review was used. The preliminary version of the model was reviewed by 10 experts selected on the basis of their academic or executive experience in higher education governance, science and technology policy, parliamentary studies, institutional conflict management, or inter-organizational cooperation. The experts assessed the model in terms of the appropriateness of its components, comprehensiveness, internal coherence, feasibility, and compatibility with the legal and institutional context of Iran. Their feedback was categorized and used to revise and strengthen the final model. Findings The findings indicate that the optimal strategic model for constructive coordination and cooperation between the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology and the Islamic Parliament should be based on three interconnected pillars: the cultural-attitudinal pillar, the structural-institutional pillar, and the process-operational pillar. These pillars reflect the main themes extracted from documentary analysis and provide a multi-level framework for moving from a reactive and supervisory relationship toward a strategic partnership. The first pillar is the cultural-attitudinal pillar. This pillar refers to the need to transform the mindset governing the relationship between the two institutions. The analysis showed that many communication problems originate not only from legal or structural gaps but also from perceptions, language, distrust, and lack of mutual understanding. Therefore, the model emphasizes trust-building, the creation of a shared language, mutual respect for institutional roles, and recognition of the limitations and capacities of each side. In this pillar, the Parliament should recognize the Ministry as a specialized executive body with technical knowledge, while the Ministry should recognize the Parliament as the representative of public concerns and the holder of legislative and supervisory authority. Joint training programs, dialogue workshops, and a shared ethical communication charter are among the operational actions proposed for strengthening this pillar. The second pillar is the structural-institutional pillar. The study found that the absence of stable institutional mechanisms is one of the main reasons for fragmented, reactive, and person-centered interactions between the two institutions. Therefore, the proposed model includes several permanent or semi-permanent structures. These include a joint coordination committee, a joint secretariat, specialized joint working groups, a shared digital platform, a specialized advisory system, and a structured mechanism for conflict resolution. The joint coordination committee is expected to serve as the strategic center of the model, while the joint secretariat would be responsible for documentation, follow-up, reporting, and continuity. The digital platform would facilitate document sharing, scheduling, consultation, transparency, and possibly future data-based analysis. The specialized advisory system would enable the Parliament to benefit from scientific and technical expertise before legislative decisions are finalized. The third pillar is the process-operational pillar. This pillar concerns the practical procedures through which cooperation can be implemented in daily institutional interactions. The main processes include prior consultation before legislation, transparent and periodic reporting by the Ministry, joint field visits, structured participation of stakeholders, formal media coordination, and a conflict resolution process. The model emphasizes that any major bill or plan related to higher education and science policy should be accompanied by expert review, feasibility assessment, and impact analysis before entering the final legislative process. Transparent reporting is also considered essential for trust-building and accountability. Joint visits to universities, science and technology parks, and knowledge-based firms are proposed to increase shared understanding of real problems and opportunities. In addition to these three pillars, the model includes a continuous improvement cycle. This cycle links the outputs of cooperation-such as better laws, reduced institutional tensions, improved transparency, and enhanced trust—to the revision and strengthening of the model itself. Key performance indicators are proposed for monitoring the implementation of the model, including indicators related to the number and quality of joint meetings, the implementation of prior consultation, stakeholder participation, reporting quality, conflict resolution, and expert satisfaction. Discussion and Conclusion The proposed model, entitled “Institutional Convergence for Scientific Progress,” seeks to transform the relationship between the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology and the Islamic Parliament from a limited supervisory-executive pattern into a strategic, evidence-based, and constructive partnership. The model does not deny the legal authority of parliamentary oversight or the accountability responsibility of the executive branch. Instead, it attempts to make these legal roles more effective by adding prior consultation, structured dialogue, expert support, transparent reporting, and systematic conflict management. The legal foundation of the model is consistent with the constitutional principles governing the relationship between the executive and legislative branches in Iran. In particular, the model recognizes the independence of powers, the legislative and supervisory role of the Parliament, and the responsibility of the executive branch to coordinate and implement laws. Therefore, strategic cooperation is not presented as a substitute for legal oversight; rather, it is introduced as a mechanism for improving the quality and effectiveness of oversight, legislation, and implementation. The study also shows that domestic literature has addressed various aspects of government–parliament relations, public policy, and higher education governance, but has rarely provided a specific operational model for the relationship between the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology and the Parliament. International literature, especially in collaborative governance, inter-organizational cooperation, conflict management, scientific advice to parliament, and parliamentary technology assessment, offers useful conceptual insights and institutional experiences. However, these frameworks do not provide a ready-made model for the specific legal, political, and institutional context of Iran. Thus, the contribution of this study lies in designing a localized, multi-level, and operational model for the strategic cooperation of these two institutions in the field of science and higher education. The implementation of the model can contribute to better legislation, reduced institutional misunderstandings, greater transparency, improved trust, and stronger collective capacity for addressing complex higher education challenges. However, the model’s practical effectiveness depends on political will, institutional commitment, managerial continuity, and the gradual implementation of pilot projects. Initial steps may include signing a strategic cooperation memorandum, establishing a joint coordination committee, launching a pilot version of the digital platform, implementing prior consultation for selected legislative issues, and developing a joint communication charter. The study has several limitations. It is based mainly on secondary documentary data and does not include in-depth interviews with members of Parliament, senior managers of the Ministry, or other direct stakeholders. In addition, documentary analysis is always exposed to some degree of researcher interpretation, although systematic coding, triangulation of sources, and expert review were used to reduce this limitation. Finally, the proposed model has been designed and initially validated at the expert level, but assessing its real effectiveness requires field implementation and evaluation over time. Overall, the study provides an initial but structured step toward designing a national model of strategic institutional cooperation in science and higher education governance. Future research can test and refine the model through broader expert surveys, interviews with direct stakeholders, and pilot implementation in specific policy areas such as graduate employability, university–industry relations, higher education financing, or the reform of admission and assessment mechanisms. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Strategic Model, Institutional Convergence, Strategic Cooperation, Science and Technology Governance, Higher Education, Ministry of Science Research and Technology, Islamic Parliament of Iran | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 30 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 12 |
||