Problematizing Iranian university autonomy: a historical-institutional perspective

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 CULTURAL STUDIES
Habib Ollah Fazeli, Behzad Attarzadeh
{"title":"Problematizing Iranian university autonomy: a historical-institutional perspective","authors":"Habib Ollah Fazeli, Behzad Attarzadeh","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2023.2273925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article adopts an institutional perspective to elucidate Iranian university autonomy. First, a historical analysis traces statist dominance over academia in Iran by examining archival sources, documents, and scholarly works. Second, a content analysis of expert panels, interviews, and literature categorizes higher education's problems to delineate key issues. Third, a meta-analysis examines the implications for institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Fourth, governmental strategy regarding university autonomy is scrutinized by analyzing policies, laws, and statements. Finally, a reconciliatory strategy is proposed embracing accountability while expanding autonomy. Tracing critical junctures, the analysis outlines the divergence of modern universities from traditional seminaries through state establishment based on Western models, engendering governance effects. The 1851 Dar ol-Fonun constituted an initial modernizing response. The 1934 genesis of Tehran University enacted a seminal rupture with old seminaries. The 1980 Cultural Revolution expanded governmental control to reshape higher education. Consequently, extensive interventions overlaid with centralized bureaucracy have dominated academia. Resultant autonomy constraints stem from structural-administrative deficiencies, financial dependence, attenuated university-society connections, and pervasive formalism. By illuminating the historical shaping forces, this perspective identifies avenues for developing accountability-anchored autonomy through contextualized strategy, providing insights into policy pathways.KEYWORDS: University autonomyhigher education in Iranhistorical institutionalismstate-university relationship AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Center for Public Policy Studies at the University of Tehran. We would like to extend our appreciation to the Center and its Director, Dr. Madjid Vahid, for their support.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. University autonomy refers to the degree of self-governance granted to higher education institutions to make independent decisions across key domains like administration, finances, academics, and research without external intervention.2. As Wittrock notes, this twofold was somehow not exclusive to Germans: ‘In this period of European history, an unresolved tension between a general development towards scientific specialization and internationalization and increasing demands that universities contribute to the strengthening and the power ambitions of different nations. Growing awareness, shared by the universities themselves, of the international nature of science and of universities as institutions, went often hand in hand with a strong sense of national pride also among university professors and students’ (Citation2019, 283).3. The German bureaucratic structure influenced American bureaucratic reforms in the late 19th century, as seen in Woodrow Wilson’s political thought (see Link Citation1968). Drawing inspiration from Wilson’s wise counsel, ‘We can never learn either our own weaknesses or our own virtues by comparing ourselves with ourselves’ (Wilson Citation1887, 219), we will heed his advice in our conclusion.4. Javad Tabatabai, in his brilliant book, Tabriz School, has attributed this title to the initial group of modernist reformists who were active in the court of crown prince in Tabriz.5. Dar ol-Fonun was regarded by foreign observers as a component of Amir Kabir extensive military reforms, aimed mainly at enhancing the quality of officers of the inefficient Persian army (Gurney and Nabavi Citation1993)6. We used data from Farasatkhah (Citation2021 [two volumes]), which included reports of 30 expert panels with Iranian higher education officials and specialists, and Mahuzi et al. (Citation2022), which included analysis from an expert panel of 26 specialists and administrators on Iran’s higher education regulations. We also referenced interviews and statements from senior Iranian higher education officials in media sources. Additionally, relevant studies regarding university autonomy and the state-university relationship in Iran were also referenced, to which we will return in the meta-analysis section.7. In 1979, the total number of Iran’s public and private higher education institutions was 232, increasing to 1300 by 2005 (Tabnak, Feb 6, Citation2019; Irna, June 26; Citation2013). Over the next 8 years it jumped to 2639, reaching 2724 by 2018 (Tabnak, Feb 6, Citation2019).8. University administrators desire autonomy in faculty recruitment without governmental interference, yet lack the requisite institutional capacity to attract qualified academics, as past hiring have frequently stemmed from personal connections, clientelism, or cronyism rather than impersonal, professional principles.9. As the scholar of administrative law, the late Professor Tabatabai Motameni notes, ‘Non-territorial or technical decentralization refers to granting autonomy and decision-making authority to an organization or group of experts for technical and specialized affairs, so they can work free from political or administrative influence and are not highly dependent on governmental policies. Therefore, an effort is made for that organization to have an independent board of directors elected from within that body … and be run by it. … Examples are cultural institutions such as universities that possess autonomy and a distinct legal personality and manage the tasks assigned to them through their own councils’ (Citation2018, 76).10. A higher education administrator, who was physician, defending the notion of regionalization referred to it as ‘higher education federalism’ during one of the panel discussions (Farasatkhah Citation2021, 566).11. One of the panel members correctly pointed out that ‘we must separate decentralization from university independence; that is, decentralization will not necessarily lead to greater independence (Farasatkhah Citation2021, 522).’12. An official from the Ministry of Science announced in June 2023 that according to the Reorganization of Higher Education plan, the country’s current 2,183 universities will be merged into 400 universities (Entekhab, June 22, Citation2022).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Center for Public Policy Studies, University of Tehran.Notes on contributorsHabib Ollah FazeliHabib ollah Fazeli is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the University of Tehran. He earned his Ph.D. in 2010 and his research interests include the history of political and legal thought in Iran, Iranian national identity, the evolution of academic institutions in Iran, and constitutional law.Behzad AttarzadehBehzad Attarzadeh earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Tehran, where his thesis on the state and foundations of public policy in Iran was awarded the 2018 Farabi International Award for the 2nd best work in Political Science, International Relations, and Regional Studies. He has research experience at scientific institutions in Tehran and has taught as a lecturer at the University of Tehran, Allameh Tabataba'i University, and Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. His research interests include the history of state and political institutions in Iran, theories of state, state-university relations, and Iranian national identity.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"59 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2023.2273925","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article adopts an institutional perspective to elucidate Iranian university autonomy. First, a historical analysis traces statist dominance over academia in Iran by examining archival sources, documents, and scholarly works. Second, a content analysis of expert panels, interviews, and literature categorizes higher education's problems to delineate key issues. Third, a meta-analysis examines the implications for institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Fourth, governmental strategy regarding university autonomy is scrutinized by analyzing policies, laws, and statements. Finally, a reconciliatory strategy is proposed embracing accountability while expanding autonomy. Tracing critical junctures, the analysis outlines the divergence of modern universities from traditional seminaries through state establishment based on Western models, engendering governance effects. The 1851 Dar ol-Fonun constituted an initial modernizing response. The 1934 genesis of Tehran University enacted a seminal rupture with old seminaries. The 1980 Cultural Revolution expanded governmental control to reshape higher education. Consequently, extensive interventions overlaid with centralized bureaucracy have dominated academia. Resultant autonomy constraints stem from structural-administrative deficiencies, financial dependence, attenuated university-society connections, and pervasive formalism. By illuminating the historical shaping forces, this perspective identifies avenues for developing accountability-anchored autonomy through contextualized strategy, providing insights into policy pathways.KEYWORDS: University autonomyhigher education in Iranhistorical institutionalismstate-university relationship AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Center for Public Policy Studies at the University of Tehran. We would like to extend our appreciation to the Center and its Director, Dr. Madjid Vahid, for their support.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. University autonomy refers to the degree of self-governance granted to higher education institutions to make independent decisions across key domains like administration, finances, academics, and research without external intervention.2. As Wittrock notes, this twofold was somehow not exclusive to Germans: ‘In this period of European history, an unresolved tension between a general development towards scientific specialization and internationalization and increasing demands that universities contribute to the strengthening and the power ambitions of different nations. Growing awareness, shared by the universities themselves, of the international nature of science and of universities as institutions, went often hand in hand with a strong sense of national pride also among university professors and students’ (Citation2019, 283).3. The German bureaucratic structure influenced American bureaucratic reforms in the late 19th century, as seen in Woodrow Wilson’s political thought (see Link Citation1968). Drawing inspiration from Wilson’s wise counsel, ‘We can never learn either our own weaknesses or our own virtues by comparing ourselves with ourselves’ (Wilson Citation1887, 219), we will heed his advice in our conclusion.4. Javad Tabatabai, in his brilliant book, Tabriz School, has attributed this title to the initial group of modernist reformists who were active in the court of crown prince in Tabriz.5. Dar ol-Fonun was regarded by foreign observers as a component of Amir Kabir extensive military reforms, aimed mainly at enhancing the quality of officers of the inefficient Persian army (Gurney and Nabavi Citation1993)6. We used data from Farasatkhah (Citation2021 [two volumes]), which included reports of 30 expert panels with Iranian higher education officials and specialists, and Mahuzi et al. (Citation2022), which included analysis from an expert panel of 26 specialists and administrators on Iran’s higher education regulations. We also referenced interviews and statements from senior Iranian higher education officials in media sources. Additionally, relevant studies regarding university autonomy and the state-university relationship in Iran were also referenced, to which we will return in the meta-analysis section.7. In 1979, the total number of Iran’s public and private higher education institutions was 232, increasing to 1300 by 2005 (Tabnak, Feb 6, Citation2019; Irna, June 26; Citation2013). Over the next 8 years it jumped to 2639, reaching 2724 by 2018 (Tabnak, Feb 6, Citation2019).8. University administrators desire autonomy in faculty recruitment without governmental interference, yet lack the requisite institutional capacity to attract qualified academics, as past hiring have frequently stemmed from personal connections, clientelism, or cronyism rather than impersonal, professional principles.9. As the scholar of administrative law, the late Professor Tabatabai Motameni notes, ‘Non-territorial or technical decentralization refers to granting autonomy and decision-making authority to an organization or group of experts for technical and specialized affairs, so they can work free from political or administrative influence and are not highly dependent on governmental policies. Therefore, an effort is made for that organization to have an independent board of directors elected from within that body … and be run by it. … Examples are cultural institutions such as universities that possess autonomy and a distinct legal personality and manage the tasks assigned to them through their own councils’ (Citation2018, 76).10. A higher education administrator, who was physician, defending the notion of regionalization referred to it as ‘higher education federalism’ during one of the panel discussions (Farasatkhah Citation2021, 566).11. One of the panel members correctly pointed out that ‘we must separate decentralization from university independence; that is, decentralization will not necessarily lead to greater independence (Farasatkhah Citation2021, 522).’12. An official from the Ministry of Science announced in June 2023 that according to the Reorganization of Higher Education plan, the country’s current 2,183 universities will be merged into 400 universities (Entekhab, June 22, Citation2022).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Center for Public Policy Studies, University of Tehran.Notes on contributorsHabib Ollah FazeliHabib ollah Fazeli is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the University of Tehran. He earned his Ph.D. in 2010 and his research interests include the history of political and legal thought in Iran, Iranian national identity, the evolution of academic institutions in Iran, and constitutional law.Behzad AttarzadehBehzad Attarzadeh earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Tehran, where his thesis on the state and foundations of public policy in Iran was awarded the 2018 Farabi International Award for the 2nd best work in Political Science, International Relations, and Regional Studies. He has research experience at scientific institutions in Tehran and has taught as a lecturer at the University of Tehran, Allameh Tabataba'i University, and Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. His research interests include the history of state and political institutions in Iran, theories of state, state-university relations, and Iranian national identity.
伊朗大学自治问题:历史制度视角
摘要本文从制度的角度对伊朗大学自治问题进行分析。首先,通过研究档案来源、文件和学术著作,历史分析追溯了伊朗中央集权主义在学术界的主导地位。其次,对专家小组、访谈和文献进行内容分析,对高等教育的问题进行分类,以描述关键问题。第三,荟萃分析考察了对机构自治和学术自由的影响。第四,通过分析政策、法律、声明来审视政府的大学自治战略。最后,提出了一种和解策略,在扩大自主权的同时接受问责制。通过对关键节点的追踪,分析勾勒出现代大学与传统神学院的分歧,通过基于西方模式的国家建立,产生治理效应。1851年的Dar ol-Fonun是最初的现代化反应。1934年成立的德黑兰大学与旧的神学院彻底决裂。1980年的文化大革命扩大了政府对高等教育的控制。因此,广泛的干预和中央集权的官僚机构主导了学术界。由此产生的自治约束源于结构-行政缺陷、财政依赖、大学-社会联系减弱以及普遍的形式主义。通过阐明历史塑造力量,这一观点确定了通过情境化战略发展以问责制为基础的自治的途径,为政策路径提供了见解。关键词:大学自主;伊朗高等教育;历史制度主义;我们要感谢该中心及其主任马吉德·瓦希德博士的支持。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。大学自治是指高等教育机构在没有外部干预的情况下,在行政、财务、学术和研究等关键领域自主决策的自治程度。正如维特洛克所指出的,这种两重性在某种程度上并不是德国人所独有的:“在欧洲历史的这一时期,在科学专业化和国际化的普遍发展与对大学为不同国家的加强和权力野心做出贡献的日益增长的要求之间,存在一种未解决的紧张关系。随着大学自身对科学的国际性和大学作为机构的意识日益增强,大学教授和学生往往也会产生强烈的民族自豪感(Citation2019, 283)。从伍德罗·威尔逊的政治思想中可以看出,德国的官僚结构影响了19世纪后期美国的官僚改革。从威尔逊明智的忠告中汲取灵感,“通过与自己比较,我们永远无法了解自己的缺点或优点”(威尔逊引文,1887,219),我们将在结论中听取他的建议。Javad Tabatabai,在他的杰出著作《大不里士学派》中,把这个标题归功于在大不里士王储宫廷中活跃的最初一批现代主义改革派。外国观察家认为达尔-福农是阿米尔·卡比尔广泛军事改革的一个组成部分,其主要目的是提高效率低下的波斯军队军官的素质(Gurney和Nabavi引文,1993年)。我们使用了Farasatkhah (Citation2021[两卷])的数据,其中包括30个专家组与伊朗高等教育官员和专家的报告,以及Mahuzi等人(Citation2022)的数据,其中包括26个专家和管理人员组成的专家组对伊朗高等教育法规的分析。我们还在媒体上引用了伊朗高级高等教育官员的采访和声明。此外,我们还引用了有关伊朗大学自治和州立大学关系的相关研究,我们将在荟萃分析部分返回。1979年,伊朗公立和私立高等教育机构总数为232所,到2005年增加到1300所(Tabnak, 2月6日,Citation2019;6月26日,伊尔纳;Citation2013)。在接下来的8年里,这个数字跃升至2639,到2018年达到2724 (Tabnak, 2月6日,Citation2019)。大学管理者希望在没有政府干预的情况下自主招聘教师,但缺乏吸引合格学者的必要制度能力,因为过去的招聘往往源于个人关系、裙带关系或任人唯亲,而不是客观的、专业的原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
59
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信