Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Human Resource Management, Amin University, Tehran, Iran.
2
Associate Professor, Department of Human Resource Management, Amin University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: The development and progress of any society in any field, including scientific, cultural, economic, political, and social, has a robust correlation and relationship with the growth and progress of universities in those societies, and universities, as scientific centers, play an important and key role in the production and development of scientific theories. Despite policy recommendations and policymaking regarding the advancement of theorization in Iran, it seems that this phenomenon has not yet developed as it should, and Iranian universities still have weaknesses in this area, which reflects the issues and problems they face. Undoubtedly, as long as there is no complete and comprehensive view of the scope of these issues and concerns, it is impossible to think of solutions to them and work towards resolving them ultimately increasing the capacity for theory construction.
To educate Iran's future generation, it is vital to build theories of social and human sciences, but unfortunately, in the last few decades, no significant and effective theory has been produced at the national level that addresses this issue. The lack of theoretical works that are trend-setting and related to the original values of the Iran's Islamic Revolution causes distortion in practice. The lack of serious attention and diligence in local and national theorization at the university and research center levels causes weak analyses and wrong decisions and policies at the organizational level, and designing weak and ineffective programs at the operational level, the consequences of which will be anarchism in practice and incompetence, and this important weakness and defect in the field of social activities and missions will cause citizens to distrust the efficiency of the organization. The purpose of this research was to identify obstacles to theorization by faculty members of the Iran's universities.
Method: The research method was applied in terms of purpose and is included in the mixed methods in terms of nature. The research strategy was sequential exploratory. In this research design, qualitative data was first collected and analyzed, then quantitative data; therefore, the phenomenon was first scrutinized, and then quantitative data was used to
determine the relationships between qualitative data, and qualitative data also created quantitative data. For this purpose, the interview tool was first used to collect the opinions of experts about the obstacles to theorization. The research participants were faculty members of public universities in the humanities who were selected using non-random, purposive, and judgmental sampling methods, and the process continued until theoretical saturation. In the next stage, based on the collected codes, the questionnaire on the obstacles to theorization in the university level was prepared from qualitative interviews and extracted using a quantitative "descriptive-survey" method, and then distributed among 385 members of the university's faculties using a cluster random method according to the Cochran's (1977) formula to determine their opinion on the importance of each item. In the qualitative part, the thematic analysis method was used to count the codes, and in the quantitative part, the Friedman test was used for expressive ranking. Furthermore, to increase the credibility and validity of research findings, triangulation as a qualitative research strategy (using multiple datasets, methods, theories, and/or investigators to address a research question), receiving feedback from the research participants, and providing a detailed description of the phenomenon under study to the participants were used.
Results: In general, in the qualitative section, after conducting 15 interviews and analyzing the interviews, 218 basic codes, 45 organizing codes, and 4 comprehensive codes were identified. The comprehensive codes include: 1) Individual competencies of the theorist (in this code, the issues were as follows: weak scientific and theoretical foundation and lack of specialized knowledge, not following scientific discussions related to the specialized field and not participating in relevant scientific and specialized communities, lack of skills in scientific criticism of theories, weak scientific courage, superficial, one-dimensional and uncreative minds of professors, vagueness of scientific concerns and lack of organizational and knowledge issues throughout scientific and educational life, low self-confidence and self-deprecation among professors, self-interest and selfishness, and bad professional ethics), 2) Organizational culture (absence of a proper atmosphere for discussion at the university level, the dominance of a hierarchical and commanding culture in the organization, lack of intellectual freethinking discussion among professors due to organizational positions; faculty can set the stage for facilitating difficult dialogues through the creation of a supportive culture, supremacy of bureaucracy in the field of science, dominance of hierarchical values and obedience over boldness and risk-taking at the level of faculty members), 3) University management and leadership (lack of a proper plan and strategy for leading the universities' human, scientific, and intellectual capital, lack of a proper motivation system to encourage professors to theorization, lack of a scientific, comprehensive, and long-term plan for the university's theoretical and research areas, lack of involvement and participation of professors in real and objective issues) and 4) knowledge systems and processes (lack of an executive mechanism for developing and deepening theorization in the university, weak interaction and communication with national and international universities and scientific institutions, lack of an intelligent structure for transforming organizational experiences into scientific theories, lack of active and subject-oriented research centers and think tanks).
Discussion and Conclusions: Theorization goes through a difficult path; therefore, at best, people who have been at the pinnacle of knowledge have been able to produce theoretical propositions and perhaps in some cases have come close to it. The competencies and capacities of individuals allow them to have a precise, correct, and comprehensive understanding and analysis of a phenomenon or problem with self-confidence, motivation, perseverance, and physical and mental vitality. Creating a theory is the product of examining, studying, and thinking deeply and elaborately about the phenomenon under study and conceptualizing it. In addition to individual competencies, a theorist requires
appropriate and encouraging conditions and context for research and study. The findings of this study showed that to encourage theorization in universities, serious attention should be paid to the four dimensions of the theorist's individual competencies, organizational culture, university management and leadership, and knowledge systems and processes. In the dimension of individual competencies, a theorist requires strengthening two psychological and personality foci (self-confidence, teamwork, and creativity and analysis) and a behavioral focus (updating knowledge, participating in scientific circles, and creating an atmosphere for criticism and review). In the dimension of organizational culture, the core values of "democracy, open and free discourse, risk-taking, criticism, and creativity and innovation" should be prioritized in the country's universities. In the dimension of management and leadership, university officials should use their management tools to "encourage and motivate professors, support, and advocacy, research-oriented, and create indigenous knowledge in the country," and ultimately, the country's knowledge systems and processes should move toward intelligence, agility, knowledge integration, and synergy.
Acknowledgements: The researchers consider it necessary to express their deepest gratitude to all the professors who helped them in conducting this research.
Conflict of Interest: There is no conflict of interest in this research.
Keywords
)