Investigating the Legitimacy of Power in the Process of Academic Research

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD Student in Higher Education Development Planning, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Higher Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Higher Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran

4 Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Development, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran

Abstract

Introduction: Power is the truth of academic life and is an important element in all organizations. Gaining power and applying it effectively is essential for the survival of the system in today's environment. Power and its application as a basic component and tool in the direction of organizational behavior and thus play a key role in achieving the effectiveness of the organization. Since research requires the creation of a social relationship in which power is clearly and tangible and all forms of power can be explored through the lens of legitimacy, the purpose of the research was to examine the actors' perceptions of the legitimacy of the power exercised in the research process and their possible reactions.
Method: Since the exploration and description of the experiences of students and graduates from the exercise of power in the research process has been the purpose of the research, the research plan is qualitative. In this research, graduate students have formed the study population; because students are mainly targeted by the power of professors, and the legitimacy of power is understood through the perspective of the targets and audiences of power. The sampling method of the present study is non-targeted and criterion-based. Based on this, students and graduates participated in this research to have the criterion of team research experience, availability and agreement to conduct the interview. A semi-structured interview was conducted with 19 students and graduates of the University of Tehran. In order to analyze the data, the Stokes-Colaizzi-Kane analysis method was used. Therefore, a combination of textual and structural descriptions has been done in the research process.
Finding: The findings of the study showed Students and graduates of Tehran University understood the applied power legitimate on the basis of ethics, experience and expertise, rationality and efficiency and illegitimate on the basis of ethics, economic values, experience and expertise, religion, justice, custom, rationality, law and efficiency. Also, Avoiding exposure to bullying positions, hidden curriculum, subjection, commitment, anger and discomfort, adaptation, resistance, and cooperation have been the actors' reactions to the power applied in the research process.
Results & Conclusion: The objectives and witnesses of the exercise of power evaluate the applied power according to their values, views, principles, knowledge, experience, and other resources and assess its legitimacy. If they see the power of the agent as legitimate, they will obediently obey him, and if his power Understand illegitimately and have relatively equal power over the agent, resist it. If they can't resist but can take it away, they try to avoid it. Also, if they think of the power of the agent much more than their power and see their self-esteem weakened, they will seek to compromise with the agent. If they are forced to accept and obey the agent, despite their inner desire and inability to deal with it, they will show their sadness; Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the actors' understanding and evaluation of the power of the agents, because if they do not evaluate the power of the agents legitimately, will lead to deviation from the research policies by disobedience or obedience with reluctance. Since negative reactions such as anger and discomfort to applied power were more than positive reactions such as commitment, the findings of the study indicate the illegitimacy or low legitimacy of the power of agents and policymakers in the research process. This doubles the necessity of open policy-making in higher education and paying attention to the voice of students and their involvement in the research policy-making process.

Keywords

References

  • Adib, Y., Fathi Azar, E. & Molaghalghachi, S. (2015), “Studying the Experiences of Tabriz University Professors and Students with regard to Research Ethics: A Phenomenological Study”, Journal of Strategy for culture, No. 29: 149-178 (In Persian).
  • Arendt, H. (1986), “Communicative power”, S. Lukes (ed.), Power, (pp. 59-75), newYork: newYork university press.
  • Asghari, F. & Nemati, M. A. (2016), “The Challenge of the Quality of PhD Thesis in Iran (based on the Concept of Value Chain)”,  Iranian Journal of Cultural Research, No. 2: 191-159 (In Persian).
  • Bani-Assadi, A. & Zarghami, S. (2015), “Critical Inquiry of Supervisor-Student Academic Relationship in the Course of Dissertation Writing: From the Perspective of Students of Philosophy of Education”, New Educational Thoughts, No. 2: 148-125 (In Persian).
  • Barretta-Herman, A. L. & Garrett, K. J. (2000), “Faculty-student collaboration: Issues and recommendations”, Advances in Social Work, No. 2: 148-159.
  • Bazargan, A. (2010), Introduction to Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods, Tehran: Didar Publications (In Persian).
  • Bennett, D. M. & Taylor, D. M. (2003), “Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers”, Emergency Medicine, No. 3: 263-270.
  • BirnBaum, R. (2010). How colleges work: the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership, Translated by Hamidreza Arasteh, Tehran: Higher Education Research and Planning Institute Publications (In Persian).
  • Botas, P. C. P. (2004), “Students' perceptions of teachers' pedagogical styles in Higher Education”, The journal of doctoral research in education, No. 1: 16-30.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015), Theory of Action: Practical Reasons and Rational Choice, Translated by Reza Mardiha, Tehran: Picture Publication (In Persian).
  • Bozeman, B. & Youtie, J. (2016), “Trouble in paradise: Problems in academic research co-authoring”, Science and engineering ethics, No. 6: 1717-1743.
  • Bozorg, H. & Khakbaz, A. S. (2013), “Hidden Supervisor: the emergent Curriculum of advising graduate students thesis (case studty: training science course)”, Journal of Research in Curriculum Planning, No. 1: 50-38 (In Persian).
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage publications.
  • Dahl, R. (1986), “The forms of power”, S. Lukes (ed.), Power, (pp. 37-59), newYork: newYork university press.
  • Danaeefard, H. (2016), New Developments in the Public Policy Making, Tehran: L.S.U. Press (In Persian).
  • Etemadifard, S. (2013), “Sociological investigation Students of Universities' Social-Political Trust in Iran: relying on secondary analysis of some national surveys”, Journal of Iranian Cultural Research, No. 3: 27-54.
  • Fairholm, G. W. (2003), “Power Politics in Organizational Life: Tactics in Organizational Leadership”. In L. Porter, H. Angle & R. Allen (ed.), Organizational Influence Processes, (pp. 33-44). London & New York: Routledge.
  • Fathi vajargah, K. (2009), Principles and concepts of curriculum planning, Tehran: Bal Publications (In Persain).
  • Flohr, M. (2016), “Regicide and resistance: Foucault's reconceptualization of power”, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, No. 1: 38-56.
  • Ford, R. & Johnson, C. (1998), “The perception of power: Dependence and legitimacy in conflict”, Social Psychology Quarterly, No. 1: 16-32.
  • Foucault, M. (1986), “Disciplinary Power and Subjection”, S. Lukes (ed.), Power, (pp. 229-242), newYork: newYork university press.
  • French, J. R. & Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social power”, In D. Cartwright (ed.), studies in social power, (pp. 150-167), Univer. Michigan.
  • Galbraith, J. K. (1986), “Power and Organization”, S. Lukes (ed.), Power, (pp. 211-228), newYork: newYork.
  • Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A. & Johnston, M. W. (1992), “Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents”, Professional psychology: Research and practice, No. 3: 203-210.
  • Grant, B. (2003), “Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision”, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, No. 2: 175-190.
  • Izadinia, M. (2014), “Authorship: The hidden voices of postgraduate TEFL students in Iran”, Journal of Academic Ethics, No. 4: 317-331.
  • Lee, A. (2008), “How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision”, Studies in Higher Education, No. 3: 267-281.
  • Macfarlane, B. (2017), “The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy”, Studies in higher education, No. 7: 1194-1210.
  • Madahi, M. (2010), “An analysis of the concept and characteristics of power”, Knowledge Quarterly, No. 10: 123-138 (In Persian).
  • Meng, Y., He, J. & Luo, C. (2014), “Science Research Group Leader's Power and Members' Compliance and Satisfaction with Supervision”, Research Management Review, No. 1: 1-15.
  • Moeini Shahraki, H., Torkzadeh, J., Mohammadi, M., Khademi, M. (2012), “A Survey of Relationship Between Organizational Structure Types and Administrators' Power Resources at Shiraz University's Administration division”, Management Studies in Development and Evolution, No. 66: 165-193 (In Persian).
  • Moustakas, C. (1994), Phenomenological research methods, Sagepublications.
  • Nabavi, A. (2000), Philosophy of Power, Tehran: SAMT Publications (In Persian).
  • Parsons, T. (1986), “Power and the social system”, S. Lukes (ed.), Power, (pp. 94-144), newYork: newYork university press.
  • Raven, B. H. (2008), “The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence”, Analyses of social issues and public policy, No. 1: 1-22.
  • Ritzer, G. (2011), Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots, Translated by Khalil Mirzaie and Ali Baqaei Sarabi, Tehran: sociologists Publications (In Persian).
  • Safaei Movahhed, S. (2017), “Under the Skin of University: Uncovering Academic Exploitation in Iranian Higher Education”, Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, No. 15: 7-34 (In Persian).
  • Sandler, J. C. & Russell, B. L. (2005), “Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit”, Ethics & behavior, No. 1: 65-80.
  • Sapir, A. & Oliver, A. (2017), “Loose coupling, conflict, and resistance: the case of IPR policy conflict in an Israeli university”, Higher Education, No. 5: 709-724.
  • Sinkkonen, H. M., Puhakka, H. & Meriläinen, M. (2014), “Bullying at a university: students' experiences of bullying”, Studies in Higher Education, No. 1: 153-165.
  • Sokolowski, R. (2005), Introduction to Phenomenology, Translated by Mohammad Reza Ghorbani. Tehran: New Step Publications (In Persian).
  • Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M. & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010), “Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences”, Social Science & Medicine, No. 9: 1458-1465.
  • Tork zade, J. & Moeini Shahraki, H. (2012), “The Comparative Analysis of Power Resources of University Professors (from their P.O.V. and Students)”, The Journal of Management in Islamic University, No. 1: 196-222 (In Persian).
  • Weber, M. (2015), Economics and Society, Translated by Abbas Manouchehri, Mehrdad Torabi Nejad & Mostafa Emadzadeh, Tehran: SAMT Publications (In Persian).
  • Wisker, G. & Robinson, G. (2014), “Examiner practices and culturally inflected doctoral theses”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, No. 2: 190-205.
  • Yukl, G. & Tracey, J. B. (2003), “Consequences of Influence Tactics Used with Subordinates, Beers, and the Boss”, In L. Porter, H. Angle & R. Allen (ed.), Organizational Influence Processes, (pp. 96-116). London & New York: Routledge.
Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran
Volume 9, Issue 3
October 2020
Pages 519-548

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics