Identifying the Most Important Factors Influencing the Future of University Research Policies: A Case Study of Seven Comprehensive Universities

Moradmand, Ali and Nakhoda, Maryam and Noruzi, Alireza and Naghshineh, Nader Identifying the Most Important Factors Influencing the Future of University Research Policies: A Case Study of Seven Comprehensive Universities. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2020, vol. 11, n. 4, pp. 31-46. [Journal article (Paginated)]


Download (708kB) | Preview

English abstract

Research at the university is one of the key pillars of community development and development, and is crucial to maintaining a competitive position at national and international levels. This study aimed to identify the most important factors affecting the future of research at seven comprehensive universities in the country: University of Tehran, Tarbiat Modares University, Shahid Beheshti University, Tabriz University, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Isfahan University, and Shiraz University. The research was conducted with future research approach. To identify the primary influencing factors, the environmental scanning method and interviews with experts in the three-month interval (April 15 to July 15, 2019) were used. In the first stage, 33 effective factors were identified. According to the experts' opinion, the 24 factors in the cross-Impact matrix were again sent back to the experts for weighting the factors. The results of MicMac analysis indicate the instability of the research system; because most factors are scattered around the diameter of the plate. Of the five types of factors identifiable on the influence-dependence plate, only two types of bidirectional and independent factors have been identified. Three cases (incompatibility of upstream documents with university research capability, government funding constraint and ignoring research) were among the independent factors and 21 factors (interdisciplinary Sciences, international cooperation, university and industry cooperation, governments approach to research, knowledge management status, belief in research benefits in solving challenges, research infrastructures, managers attitudes, culture-building, economic prosperity, non-governmental organizations approaches, research network status, technologies role, industry research needs to universities, by-laws for promotion and employing faculty members, upstream document actions, worldwide research image, industry mental image of university efficacy, the impact of the international research status, the university mentality of industry acceptance, university research laws) are among the two-way (bidirectional) factors.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Research strategies, Key research factors, Interaction effects analysis, Driving forces, Universities research policies
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Dr. Alireza Noruzi
Date deposited: 19 Mar 2020 05:14
Last modified: 19 Mar 2020 05:14


[1] Walters, T. (2013). Knowledge Creation and Production in Universities and Their Effect on University Libraries. A Ph.D. Dissertation at Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

[2] Mousavi, M. (2015). Geographic Justice and Land Reconciliation. The First Geographical Conference of Iran. Tehran: Geography Institute. {In Persian}.

[3] Brown, E. (2004). Assessment and prediction of technology; translation byAlireza Bushehri and Aqeel Malekifar. Tehran: Krana Alam Publications.{In Persian}.

[4] Staley, D., & Malenfant, K. (2010). Future Thinking for Academic Librarians: Higher Education in 2025. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.

[5] European Commission. (2011). The future state of higher education in Europe: Mini-scenarios for 2025.

[6] Austin, W. J. (2002). Strategic planning for smart leadership. Stillwater, OK: New forums press.

[7] Dooris, M. J. (2003). Tow decades of strategic planning. Planning for higher education, 31(2), 26-32.

[8] David, F. R. (2011). Strategic Management: concepts and cases, (13th ed.). New jersey: Prentice hall.

[9] Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations, (4th ed). Josseybass.

[10] Yemeni Dozi e Sorkhabi, M. (2009). Academic Development Planning, Interdisciplinary Areas. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 1(2), 1- 24. {In Persian}.

[11] Polak, F. (2000). The Image of the Future. Translated by Boulding, E. Elsevier ScientificPublishing Company.

[12] Kousari, S., & Rahmati, F. S. (2019). Future-oriented Researches and ITS Roles in STI Policy Making. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(2), 103-118. {In Persian}.

[13] Cornish, E. (1997). The Study of the Future: An Introduction to The art and Science of understanding and shaping Tomorrow World. Maryland: World Future, Society.

[14] Zare Banadkooki, M. R., Vahdatzad, M. A., & Owlia, M. S. (2016). The study of Effective Measure for Iranian University Rankings from Upstream Documents. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 8(3), 55-87. {In Persian}.

[15] Gieseck, J. (Ed.). (1998). Scenario Planning for Libraries. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

[16] Vincent–Lankerin, S. (2004). Building Future Scenarios for Universities and Higher Education. An International Approach, Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 245-263.

[17] Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in academic research? Trends and futures scenarios. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 169–209.

[18] Smith, S. T. (2008). Megatrends in Higher Education. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of North Texas.

[19] Huisman, J., De Boer, H., & Botas, P. C. P. (2012). The future of English higher education: the changing landscape 12. London: LFHE.

[20] Walters, T. (2012). The Future Role of Publishing Services in University Libraries. Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), 425-454.

[21] Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation and methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

[22] Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research, 3(3), 118-126.

[23] Godet, A. J., Meunier, M. F., and Roubelat, F. (2003). Structural analysis with the MICMAC method & actors' strategy with MACTOR method. In: Glenn, J. C., and Gordon, T. J. (Eds), AC/UNU Millennium. Project: Futures Research Methodology-V2.0, AC/UNU, Washington, DC.

[24] Godet, M. (1991). From Anticipation to Action. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item