نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
2 گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Aim: A rigorous analysis of governance mechanisms in higher education necessitates moving beyond one-dimensional perspectives to address the multiple and often concealed dimensions of power. Accordingly, the primary objective of this study is to identify, configure, and empirically validate a four-dimensional model of power—encompassing structural, network, discursive, and agentic dimensions—within the Iranian academic field, through a focused case study of the University of Kurdistan.
Methodology: This study employed a mixed-methods approach with a concurrent triangulation design. Quantitative data were gathered via a self-developed questionnaire (demonstrating a reliability coefficient of 0.94) administered to a sample of 163 academic stakeholders selected through purposive and convenience sampling. The quantitative component was analyzed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and inferential statistics, while qualitative data derived from open-ended questions were scrutinized through thematic analysis.
Results: The results of the exploratory factor analysis led to the identification of four primary constructs of power (structural, network, discursive, and agentic), which collectively account for 70.55% of the total variance. Among these dimensions, the structural (explaining 40.75% of the variance) and network (14.25%) constructs were perceived as the most dominant dimensions of power within the academic field. Furthermore, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) results indicated that faculty members' perception of the impact of these two dimensions is significantly stronger than that of students.
Conclusions and suggestions: Findings suggest that bureaucratic obstruction drives academic stakeholders to rely on informal networks as a substitute for formal agency. Addressing this structural duality requires two strategic interventions: the clarification of decision-making protocols and the operational devolution of the administrative hierarchy.
Innovation and originality: This research empirically validates the distinction between network and structural power in Iran’s organizational context. It demonstrates that informal networks act as a compensatory response to bureaucratic failure, rather than a continuation of formal structural frameworks.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)