نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه نوآوری آموزشی و درسی، مؤسسة پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی آموزش عالی، تهران، ایران.

10.30486/jsre.2020.583969.1324

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی مسائل موجود بر دانش‌پژوهی تدریس اعضای هیئت‌علمی به واکاوی پدیده سایش با توجه به بافت حاکم بر دانشگاه‌های ایران پرداخته است. این پژوهش در پارادایم تفسیرگرایی با رویکرد کیفی و بر اساس روش پژوهش نظریة داده‌بنیاد (مبنایی)، با 19 عضو هیئت‌علمی دارای مرتبه استادیاری و در دو حوزة علوم انسانی و مهندسی دانشگاه‌های جامع شهر تهران از طریق مصاحبه‌های عمیق نیمه ساختارمند به صورت هدفمند و با استفاده از راهبردهای نمونه‌گزینی با حداکثر تنوع انجام شده است. تحلیل داده‌های حاصل درسه مرحله کدگذاری باز، محوری و گزینشی صورت پذیرفت. بر اساس یافته‌ها، پدیدة سایش در آموزش عالی ایران دارای ابعاد کلامی و اجتماعی است. این پدیده به دلیل شرایط سازمانی و فردی ظهور یافته (عوامل علّی) و به واکنش‌هایی چون اجتناب و تقابل (راهبرد) منجر شده است. این واکنش‌ها تحت تأثیر پاسخ مسئولان، تاب‌آوری (شرایط مداخله‌گر)، ساختار و فرهنگ دانشگاهی (شرایط زمینه‌ای) بروز پیدا کرده و به آسیب‌پذیری شغلی، فردی و اجتماعی (پیامد) منجر شده‌اند. نتایج بیانگر آن است که، کارکرد آموزش در این بستر در سه سطح تدریس خوب (مبتنی بر تجربة فردی)، تدریس عالمانه (مبتنی بر تلفیق دانش محتوایی و پداگوژی) و دانش‌پژوهی آموزشی (نشر دانش مدرسی) تعریف شده است. از منظر اعضای هیئت‌علمی با توجه به گسترة پدیدة سایش، فرایندهای تدریس مبتنی بر تجربة شخصی انجام می‌شود و به‌طور سازمان‌دهی‌شده، برنامه‌های توانمندسازی و نشر دانش مدرسی، پیش‌بینی نشده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Scholarship of Teaching, missing Function of higher education in Iran; Reflection of Bullying

نویسنده [English]

  • Zahra rashidi

assistant professor of the department of educational innovation and training institute for research and planning in higher education, tehran, iran.

چکیده [English]

This study aims identify the existing problems of teaching scholarship faculty members. In this way, various aspects of these issues were tried and presented with respect to the context of the institution of university in Iran. The present study was conducted within the framework of the qualitative approach and using grounded Theory research method. For data collection from participants, in-depth and informal interviews were used. Selection of information media of the research was done purposefully and using sampling strategies with maximum variation and theoretical sampling the research media included 19 faculty members of comprehensive universities in Tehran. Data analysis was performed in three stages of open, axial, and selective coding. According to the findings, the phenomenon of bullying in faculty members' relations in Iran's higher education has verbal and social dimensions (Phenomena). This phenomenon has arisen due to organizational and individual circumstances (Causal Conditions) and resulted in reactions such as avoidance, conflict (Strategy). These reactions have been affected by the responses of the authorities, the persistence and common beliefs (intervening conditions), structure and academic culture (context), resulting in occupational, personal, social and economic vulnerability(Consequences). The function of education in this context is defined in three levels of good teaching (based on individual experience), scholarly teaching (based on the integration of content knowledge and pedagogy), and the scholarship of teaching (Teacher Education Publishing). From the faculty point of view, according to the phenomenon of bullying, teaching processes based on personal experience are organized, teacher empowerment and dissemination programs are not foreseen.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Scholarship of Teaching
  • Faculty Members
  • Higher Education
  • bullying
  • Grounded Theory

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.

Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal,and indirect aggression:A review of recent research.Sex Roles,30,177-188.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations(2ed).San

 

Corbin, J., Strauss, A. L., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. sage

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Merrill Education.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice2, 3-40

Farasatkhah, M. (2012). Evaluation of Iranian higher education quality: Application of basic theory. Publication: Higher Education Research and Planning Institute

Farasatkhah, M. (2016). Occasionally University of Iran New and Critical Debates on University Study, Science and Higher Education Studies, Tehran, Publishing:Agah

Farasatkhah, M. (2016). Qualitative research method in social sciences with emphasis on "theory based" (Grounded Theory of GTM). Tehran: Informative Publishing (in Persian).

Farasatkhah, M., & Maniee, R. (2014). Factors affecting faculty members' participation in higher education policy planning and university planning. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning of Higher Education

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American behavioral scientist34(4), 416-430

Ghasemi, M., Salehi, k. (2017). Representation of barriers and challenges faced by new faculty members;Phenomenological study. Quarterly Journal of Training & Development of Human Resources 4(13), 1-25.

Glambek. M, Skogstad. A, Einarsen. S. (2018). Workplace Bullying, the Development of Job Insecurity and the Role of Laissez-Faire Leadership: A two-wave moderated. Journal of Mediation Study, Work & Stress, 32(3), 297-312.

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. Special Report. Jossey Bass Inc., Publishers, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103

Harvey, S., & Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace: Risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 31(8), 807-814

Hollis, L. P. (2015). Bully university? The cost of workplace bullying and employee disengagement in American higher education. Sage Open5(2), 2158244015589997

Hosseini, L. S. M., & Fathi, V. K. (2018). Conceptualizing of Scraped Ccurriculum in Iran’s higher education system. Research in Curriculum Planning.15(30),1-27.

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2006). Like wolves in a pack: Predatory alliances of bullies in nursing. Journal of Management & Organization12(3), 235-250.

Karimian, Z., Abolghasemi, M., Sabbaghian, Z., & Pardakhtchi, M. H. (2014). Development the Concept of Scholarship with Emphasis on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning a Qualitative Study in the Iranian Universities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences (IJVLMS)4(4), 69-84.

Karimian, Z., & Abolghasemi, M. (2018). Comparison between the Viewpoints of Faculty Members Regarding the Share of Scholarship Functions in Different Disciplines. Journal of Medical Education11(29), 78-94.

King, C., & Piotrowski, C. (2015). Bullying of Educators by Educators: Incivility in Higher Education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research8(4), 257-262.

LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the US workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics83(2), 147-165.

Lenthe, S. A. (2006). Current use and importance of EL Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers. Ohio University.

Lester, J. (Ed.). (2013). Workplace bullying in higher education. Routledge

Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college lecturers. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling32(3), 281-299.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology5(2), 165-184

McGaghie, W. C. (2009). Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 43. Medical teacher31(7), 574-590.

Mohammadzadeh, Z., Salehi, K. (2016). Explaining the phenomenon of vitality and scientific dynamics in scientific centers from the perspective of the university elite: a phenomenological approach. Strategy, 25 (79).

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). Bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job. Sourcebooks, Inc.

Ng, N. (2017). From the top down: how leadership can diminish workplace bullying. Journal of emergency nursing43(6), 586-587.

Ngal, I. (2016). Sources of Workplace Bullying in Institution of Higher Education Learning. Pyrex Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 2(5), 28-34.

NgaleIlongo, F. (2015). Defining workplace bullying in institutions of higher learning. Journal of Organisation and Human Behaviour4(1).

O’Moore, M., & Lynch, J. (2007). Leadership, working environment and workplace bullying. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior10(1), 95-117.

O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review25(2), 372-388.

Parveen, N. (2018). The Grounded Theory Methodology in Psychology: A Review. International Journal of Indian Psychology, Volume 6, Issue 1, (No. 5)6, 23.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human relations54(11), 1387-1419.

Plonien, C. (2016). Bullying in the workplace: A leadership perspective. AORN journal103(1), 107-110.

Rashidi, Z. (2018). Bullying a among faculty members relationships in the comprehensive universities of Tehran; Grounded Theory Approach. Research Project. Institute for Research and Planning for Higher Education. (In Persian).

RAZI, J., EMAMJOMEH, M. R., & AHMADI, G. A. (2017). Presenting a model for effective teacher and considering its proportionality with upper documents implications of Iran education system. Research in Curriculum Planning.14 (28), 1-14.

Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. New directions for teaching and learning,  (86), 57-68

Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and the workplace: Are there any links? British Journal of Psychology94(2), 175-188.

Taylor, S. K. (2012). Workplace bullying in higher education: faculty experiences and responses

Thomas, M. (2005). Bullying among support staff in a higher education institution. Health Education105(4), 273-288.

Tsuno, K., Kawakami, N., Tsutsumi, A., Shimazu, A., Inoue, A., Odagiri, Y., ... & Kawachi, I. (2015). Socioeconomic determinants of bullying in the workplace: A national representative sample in Japan. PLoS One10(3), e0119435

Westhues, K. (2006). The remedy and prevention of mobbing in higher education: Two case studies. Edwin Mellen Press

Yoo, G., & Lee, S. (2018). It doesn’t end there: workplace bullying, work-to-family conflict, and employee well-being in Korea. International journal of environmental research and public health15(7), 1548, 1-13.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in research and practice165, 183.