Identifying and Prioritizing the Socio-Cultural Dimensions and Factors Affecting the Jihadist Management in the University Administration System: Interdisciplinary Approach

Abstract

The aim of this study is to identify and prioritize the socio-cultural dimensions and factors affecting the Jihadist management in the university administration. As the country (Islamic Republic of Iran) needs to have the managers at this kind of high spirit to promote national and international aims, this study is very important. In this study, after forming an expert panel based on focus group, it has been conducted for initial reduction and proportionality of the list of socio-cultural dimensions and components which provided by the supreme council of revolution. The resulting decision tree from the stage of focal group has been taken the base for designing the questionnaire, after the general approval of Experts. The questionnaire containing the Lykerts' five-rank has been given to the university business administrators and finely 14 of them have been taken as the base of analysis for researchers. The analysis of socio-cultural dimensions is performed based on TOPSIS method. Based on the results, the social order, morality and unity are the most important dimensions. Also, the courage, dedication, attention to self-making, responsibility, the culture of Jihad and mobilization, having the mentality of jihadists and fighting are the most important factors of the socio-cultural to affect the realization of Jihadist management in universities.

Keywords

References

20. Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research; Theory, Methods and Techniques, Sage Publications, London. 21. Creswell, J., W. and V. L Plano Clark, (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, London: Sage Publication Inc. 22. Fritz Morstein Marx, Ed, Elements of Public Administration (1963) 2nd Ed (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,), p.4 23. Garcia- Alvarez, E. and Lopez- Sintas, J., (2002). Contingency Table: A Two-way Bridge between Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Field Methods, 14: 270- 287 24. James W. Davis, Jr (1949) Policy and Administration (University, AL: University of Alabama Press. 25. Jantsch, E. (1970). Inter- and trans disciplinary university: A systems approach to Education and innovation. Policy Sciences, 1, 403–428. 26. Kitzinger, J., Barbour, R.S., (1999). Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (Eds.), Developing Focus Group Research. Sage Publications, London. 27. Moran, J. (2002). Interdisciplinary. New York: Routledge. 28. Patton, M. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, London: Sage. 29. Silva, E.G., Teixeira, A.A.C., (2008). Surveying structural change: seminal contributions and a bibliometric account. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 19, 273–300. 30. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie (2003). "Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research", First Edition, Sage Publication Inc.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics