با همکاری مشترک دانشگاه پیام نور و انجمن مدیریت دولتی ایران و انجمن مدیریت رفتار سازمانی

نوع مقاله : اکتشافی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه سنجش و پژوهش، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، دانشکده اقتصاد و حسابداری، دانشگاه آزاد تهران مرکز، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

امروزه، دولت‌ها در بخش تأمین مالی آموزش عالی در سطح جهان با کمبودهای مالی شدیدی مواجه شده‌اند؛ بنابراین، بنا بر ضرورت سیاست شهریه را در آموزش عالی وضع کرده‌اند و همواره به دنبال راهبردهای برای افزایش اثربخشی این سیاست هستند. بر این اساس، هدف پژوهش پیشرو، مطالعه مؤلفه‌های سیاست‌گذاری در اقتصاد شهریه در بخش دولتی می‌باشد. این پژوهش در دو مرحله انجام شده است. در مرحله نخست، با به‌کارگیری روش فراترکیب مؤلفه‌های سیاست‌گذاری شهریه در نظام آموزش عالی استخراج شد. بدین منظور، کلیدواژه‌های تخصصی پژوهش در پایگاه‌های معتبر علمی در بازه زمانی (1990-2021) جستجو شدند. در نهایت از میان 229 مقاله 107 مقاله وارد تحلیل نهایی شدند. در مرحله دوم، با به‌کارگیری تکنیک آنتروپی شانون یافته‌های بخش کیفی وزن‌دهی شدند. در مجموع، هفت مؤلفه تعیین‌کننده سیاست‌گذاری شهریه؛ دانشجو (فردی، خانوادگی)؛ دانشگاه (پیچیدگی در قیمت‌گذاری شهریه، تنوع و تکثر سیاست‌های دانشگاه، کیفیت علمی دانشگاه)؛ آموزش عالی (رهبری در آموزش عالی، قوانین و مقررات در آموزش عالی)؛ استان (سازوکارهای قانونی و سیاستی استان‌ها، سازوکارهای مشارکتی و حمایتی استان‌ها)؛ حکمرانی کلان (حکمرانی خوب، قوانین و مقررات کلان) و محیطی (هنجارهای فرهنگی، هنجارهای اجتماعی) شناسایی شدند. از این میان، مؤلفه دانشجویی و محیطی وزن بیشتری نسبت به دیگر مؤلفه‌ها داشتند. در پایان، راهکارهای برای نظام آموزش عالی ازجمله در نظر داشتن مفهوم شهریه افتراقی به معنی توجه به عوامل گوناگون در تعیین سیاست‌های شهریه براساس نرخ بازده رشته‌های تحصیلی، مقطع و منطقه جغرافیایی و غیره بیان شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Study of Policy Components in the Tuition Economy in the Public Sector: a Meta-Synthesis of Selected Studies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ebrahim Khodaei 1
  • Gholamreza Geraeinejad 2
  • َAhmad Keykha 3

1 Associate Professor, Department of Assessment and Research, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics and Accounting, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Ph.D Candidat, Department of Educational Planning Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Today, governments are facing severe financial shortfalls in financing higher education globally. Therefore, due to the necessity, they have established the tuition policy in higher education and are always looking for strategies to increase the effectiveness of this policy. Based on this, the upcoming research aims to study the policy components of the tuition economy in the public sector. This research was done in two stages. In the first stage, the components of tuition policy in the higher education system were extracted using the Meta-synthesis method. For this purpose, specialized research keywords were searched in reliable scientific databases in the period (1990-2021). Finally, among 229 articles, 107 articles were included in the final analysis. In the second step, the qualitative section's findings were weighted using the Shannon entropy technique. In total, seven determining components of tuition policy; student (individual, family); University (complexity in tuition pricing, diversity and a plurality of university policies, academic quality of the university); Higher education (leadership in higher education, rules, and regulations in higher education); State (legal and political mechanisms of State, collaborative and supportive mechanisms of State); Macro governance (good governance, macro laws, and regulations) and environmental (cultural norms, social norms) were identified. The student and environmental components had more weight than other components. In the end, the solutions for the higher education system were stated, including considering the concept of differential tuition, which means paying attention to various factors in determining tuition policies based on the rate of return of academic fields, degrees, geographical region, etc.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher Education
  • Shannon Entropy
  • Higher Education Policy
  • Tuition
  • Meta-Synthesis
Abazari, Y, & Parnian, H (2014). The educational establishment of Niavaran school (the history of the establishment of government educational institutions of management and free market economy). Sociological Studies, 22(2), 151-176. (In Persian)
Ahmadi, A, Karimzadegan, D & Khairati Kazroni, T (2014). Data mining of Tehran University withdrawal students with a focus on retaining tuition-paying students (preventing customer turnover). Information Technology Management Quarterly, 7(2), 217-238. (In Persian)
Azar, A (2001). Extension and development of Shannon's entropy method for data processing in content analysis. Humanities, 37. (In Persian)
Baert, S., Marx, I., Neyt, B., Van Belle, E., & Van Casteren, J. (2018). Student employment and academic performance: an empirical exploration of the primary orientation theory. Applied Economics Letters, 25(8), 547-552.
BARR, N. & CRAWFORD, I. (2005) Financing Higher Education: Answers from the UK, London and New York: Routledge.
Bell, E. (2020). The politics of designing tuition-free college: How socially constructed target populations influence policy support. The Journal of Higher Education91(6), 888-926.
Bolli, T., & Johnes, G. (2015). In my own time: tuition fees, class time and student effort in non-formal (or continuing) education. Journal of Education and Work, 28(6), 592-606.
Bolli, T., Olivares, M., Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., Aracil, A. G., & Lepori, B. (2016). The differential effects of competitive funding on the production frontier and the efficiency of universities. Economics of Education Review52, 91-104.
Bozick, R., & Miller, T. (2014). In-state college tuition policies for undocumented immigrants: Implications for high school enrollment among non-citizen Mexican youth. Population Research and Policy Review, 33(1), 13-30
Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E., & Wyness, G. (2011). The impact of tuition fees and support on university participation in the UK (No. W11/17). IFS Working Papers.
Delaney, J. A., & Kearney, T. D. (2016). Alternative student-based revenue streams for higher education institutions: A difference-in-difference analysis using guaranteed tuition policies. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 731-769.
Denning, J. T. (2017). College on the Cheap: Consequences of Community College Tuition Reductions. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 9 (2), 155–188.
Dietrich, H., & Gerner, H. D. (2012). The effects of tuition fees on the decision for higher education: evidence from a German policy experiment. Economics Bulletin, 32(3), 2407-2413.
Donoso, S. (2016). When social movements become a democratizing force: the political impact of the student movement in Chile. Protest, Social Movement and Global Democracy since 2011. New Perspectives Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 39(1), 167–196
Dotterweich, D., & Baryla Jr, E. A. (2005). Non‐resident tuition and enrollment in higher education: implications for tuition pricing. Education Economics, 13(4), 375-385.
Doyle, W. R. (2012). The politics of public college tuition and state financial aid. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 617–647.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2020). The economics of tuition and fees in American higher education. In The Economics of Education (pp. 345-352). Academic Press.
Farji Dana, A & Maljo, M (2013). Political economy of teachers' economic demands: a theoretical framework. Social Welfare Quarterly, 14(15), 353-406. (In Persian)
Fethke, G. (2006). Subsidy and tuition policies in public higher education. Economic Inquiry44(4), 644-655.
Flores, S. M., & Shepherd, J. C. (2014). Pricing out the disadvantaged? The effect of tuition deregulation in Texas public four-year institutions. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science655(1), 99-122.
Frenette, M. (2005). The impact of tuition fees on university access: Evidence from a large-scale price deregulation in professional programs (No. 2005263e). Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
Garibaldi, P., Giavazzi, F., Ichino, A., & Rettore, E. (2007). College cost and time to obtain a degree: Evidence from tuition discontinuities. NBER Working Paper, 12863.
Ghoraishi, M., Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M., Zaker Salehi, Gh & Mehran, G. (2018). Structural pathology of autonomous campus of Tehran governmental universities. Management and Planning in Educational Systems, 11(1), 31-58. (In Persian)
Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D. N., & Trostel, P. A. (2009). Why financial aid matters (or does not) for college success: Toward a new interdisciplinary perspective. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1-45). Springer, Dordrecht.
Guzmán-Concha, C. (2012). The students’ rebellion in Chile. Occupy protest or classical social movement? Social Movement Studies, 11(3-4), 708-415
Halliday, S.V., Davies, B.J., Ward, P., & Lim, M. (2008). A dramaturgical analysis of the service encounter in higher education. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(1/2), 47–68.
Hauptman, A. (1990). The tuition dilemma: Assessing new ways to pay for college. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Heller, D. E. (2000). Tuition pricing and higher education participation in Colorado. Olympia, WA: Northwest Education Research Center.
Heller, D. E. (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore: JHU Press.
Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2011). The impact of tuition increases on enrollment at public colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 435-457.
Hu, X., & Villarreal, P. (2019). Public tuition on the rise: Estimating the effects of Louisiana’s performance-based funding policy on institutional tuition levels. Research in Higher Education60(5), 636-669.
Hübner, M. (2012). Do tuition fees affect enrollment behavior? Evidence from a ‘natural experiment’in Germany. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 949-960.
Hutchings, M. (2003). Financial Barriers to Participation. In Higher education and Cocial Class: Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion, edited by Archer, L., M. Hutchings, and A. Ross, 155–174. London: Routledge Falmer.
Johnson, J., Rochkind, J., Ott, A. N., & DuPont, S. (2009). With their whole lives ahead of them. Public Agenda. 1-48. Retrieved from: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/theirwholelivesaheadofthem.
Johnston, D. B. (2006). Financing higher education: Cost-sharing in international perspective. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers
Kane, T. (2004). Evaluating the Impact of the DC Tution Assistance Grant Program. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Karimi, J (2014). Education industry (critical analysis of education). Sociological Studies, 26(1), 9-38. (In Persian)
Karimi, J, Mansouri, O & Rezaei, N (2018). The dominance of the market system over Iran's higher education system. Sociological Studies, 26(1), 9-38. (In Persian)
Kaushal, N. (2008). In-state tuition for the undocumented: Education effects on Mexican young adults. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 771–792.
Kelly, W., & Shale, D. (2004). Does the Rising Cost of Tuition Affect the Socio-Economic Status of Students Entering University? Online Submission.
Kohn, M., Manski, C., & Mundel, D. (1974). An empirical investigation of factors which influence college going behavior. Rand Report (R-1470-NSF). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (2000). State appropriation and higher education tuition: What is the relationship? Education Economics, 8(1), 81-89.
Leslie, L. L., & Brinkman, P. T. (1987). Student price response in higher education: The student demand studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2), 181–204
Long, B. T. (2004). Does the format of a financial aid program matter? The effect of state in-kind tuition subsidies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(3), 767-782.
Ma, J., Baum, S., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Trends in College Pricing 2016. The College Board. https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fles/2016-trends-college-pricing-web_0.pdf.
Moulin, L., Flacher, D., & Harari-Kermadec, H. (2016). Tuition fees and social segregation: lessons from a natural experiment at the University of Paris 9-Dauphine. Applied Economics, 48(40), 3861-3876.
Mumper, M., & Freeman, M. L. (2005). The causes and consequences of public college tuition inflation. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 307-361). Springer, Dordrecht.
Naderi, A & Fooladi, M (2013). Comparative analysis of the academic progress of the first and second term master's students in educational sciences and psychology of Tehran University. Journal of Psychology and Educational Sciences, 41(4), 61-72. (In Persian)
Navehebrahim, I, Azizi Shamami, M (2012). Investigating the relationship between the social and economic status of night students and their perception of investment in graduate education. Higher Education Research and Planning Quarterly, 18(2), 109-130. (In Persian)
Neill, C. (2006). The effect of tuition fees on students’ work in Canada. Unpublished manuscript, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON.
Pigini, C., & Staffolani, S. (2016). Beyond participation: do the cost and quality of higher education shape the enrollment composition? The case of Italy. Higher education71(1), 119-142.
Ramezani, G; Azizi, N & Shafiei Sarostani, M (2022). An analysis of the influence of academic capitalism in Iran's higher education system by analyzing the country's strategic documents. Rahbord Farhang, 15(57), 167-203(In Persian)
Rasmussen, C.J. (2003). Student Tuition, Fees, and Financial Aid Assistance Policies,2002–2003. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite. asp? document=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esheeo%2Eorg%2F
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. springer publishing company.
Seif, H. (2011). Unapologetic and unafraid’: Immigrant youth come out from the shadows. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, (134), 59-75.
Serna, G. R. (2017). Effects of region on the establishment of public higher education prices in the US: indications of possible suboptimal equilibria? Studies in Higher Education, 43(4), 1–16.
Shahnazi, R, & Akbari, A (2019). Government budgeting and higher education marketing (case study: Shiraz University). Sociological Studies, 27(2), 81-110. (In Persian)
Shin, J. C., & Milton, S. (2008). Student response to tuition increase by academic majors: empirical grounds for a cost-related tuition policy. Higher Education, 55(6), 719-734.
Tuckman, H. P. (1970). Determinants of college student migration. Southern Economic Journal, 37(2), 184–189.
Veliz, D., Pickenpack, A., & Villalobos, C. (2022). Policy Translation of Social Movement Demands: The Case of Free-Tuition in Higher Education in Chile. Berkeley Review of Education11(2), 118-140.
Wakeling, P., & Jefferies, K. (2013). The effect of tuition fees on student mobility: the UK and Ireland as a natural experiment. British Educational Research Journal39(3), 491-513.
Wellman, J. (1999). The tuition puzzle: Putting the pieces together: The new millennium project on higher education costs, pricing, and productivity.
Winston, G. (2005). Peer Wages, Tuition and Price Discounts. Williamstown, MA: Williams Alumni Review, summer.
Yanikoski, R. A., & Wilson, R. F. (1984). Differential pricing of undergraduate education. The Journal of Higher Education55(6), 735-750.