Policy-making process in the education system (Case study: Faculty of Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad)

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

2 Evidence- Based Caring Research Center, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, & Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran


Background: The purpose of this study is to design a model for the policy-making process in the education system of the Faculty of Medical Sciences at the Islamic Azad University.
Methods: The research method used in this study is mixed. A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design is used to illustrate the methodological discussion. In the qualitative phase, data-based theorizing was done; and in the quantitative part, field research was fulfilled. The sample of the qualitative section consisted of 14 members of the board of trustees of the Azad University selected via purposive sampling.  As with the quantitative section, the statistical population was 110 faculty members of the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Mashhad Azad University from whom 86 ones were adopted through simple random sampling method.
Results: The research findings related to the qualitative phase were the presentation of a policy model in the education system that includes 47 components, 19 subcategories, and 6 main categories. Further, the results obtained from the quantitative phase revealed that social entrepreneurship, as the central category of research, is above average in the educational system of the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Islamic Azad University, Mashhad branch.
Conclusion: According to the theorizing in the research model, it can be concluded that conditions such as social surveying, centralized system, actors, and policy model cause social entrepreneurship to be formed as a central category in education system policy. Strategies such as knowledge-based economics, strategic management, effectiveness, and futures studies as strategies of the education system lead to inclusive employment, professional ethics, social responsibility, and training of skilled manpower.


  1. Hayes A, Findlow S. The role of time in policymaking: a Bahraini model of higher education competition. Critical Studies in Education. 2020;61(2):180-94.
  2. Mora H, Pujol-López FA, Mendoza-Tello JC, Morales-Morales MR. An education-based approach for enabling the sustainable development gear. Comput Human Behav. 2020;107:105775.
  3. Khudoyberdiev A. Success factors of IT innovation projects in Central Asia: A study of IT innovation development in Uzbekistan (Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Torino).
  4. Martin J, Nuttall J, Henderson L, Wood E. Educational Leaders and the project of professionalisation in early childhood education in Australia. Int J Educ Res. 2020;101:101559.
  5. Hansen KY, Gustafsson JE. Identifying the key source of deteriorating educational equity in Sweden between 1998 and 2014. Int J Educ Res. 2019;93:79-90.
  6. Smith K, Fernie S, Pilcher N. Aligning the times: exploring the convergence of researchers, policy makers and research evidence in higher education policy making. Research in Education. 2020;0034523720920677.
  7. Liberman N, Trope Y, Rim S. Prediction: A construal-level theory perspective. Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future. 2011;10:144-58.
  8. Faraskhah M, Maniei R. Factors Affecting the Participation of Faculty Members in Higher Education Policy and University Planning, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 2015; (20)4; 53-29. Persian.
  9. Danaeifard H, Azar A, Shirzadi M. A Framework for Identifying the Competencies of National Policymakers (Members of the Legislative Assembly), Quarterly Journal of Parliament and Strategy. 2012; (70)19: 35-5. Persian.
  10. Zhang W, Wang Y, Yang L, Wang C. Suspending classes without stopping learning: China’s education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Risk and financial management. 2020 Mar 13;13(3):55.
  11. Ganapati S, C.G. Reddick. Open e-government in US state governments: Survey evidence from Chief Information Officers. Gov Inf Q. 2012; 29(2): 115-22.
  12. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Choenni S, Meijer R. Design principles for improving the process of publishing open data. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 2014 May 13.
  13. Janssen K. The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Gov Inf Q. 2011;28(4):446-56.
  14. Barzegar, Ebrahim and Hosseinzadeh, Sayad. Introduction and application of Snellen's theory of rationality in price stabilization policy in Iran, Quarterly Journal of Strategic Studies of Public Policy. 2017;7 (22): 111-29.
  15. Andriansyah A, Taufiqurokhman T, Wekke I. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Responsiveness of public policy and its impact on education management: An empirical assessment from Indonesia. Management Science Letters. 2019;9(3):413-24.
  16. Congdon WJ, Shankar M. The role of behavioral economics in evidence-based policymaking. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2018;678(1):81-92.
  17. Gunter HM, McGinity R. The politics of the Academies Programme: natality and pluralism in education policy-making. Res Pap Educ. 2014;29(3):300-14.
  18. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications; 2014 Nov 25.
  19. Hariri N. Principles and methods of qualitative research. Tehran: Islamic Azad University. 2006.
  20. Bryman A. Social research methods. Oxford university press; 2016.
  21. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2013;9(2):79-94.
  22. Holt D, Littlewood D. Identifying, mapping, and monitoring the impact of hybrid firms. Calif Manage Rev. 2015;57(3):107-25.
  23. Azmat F, Ferdous AS, Couchman P. Understanding the dynamics between social entrepreneurship and inclusive growth in subsistence marketplaces. J Public Policy Mark 2015;34(2):252-71.
  24. Dacin, M. T., P. A. Dacin, and P. Tracey. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions, Organisation Science,. 2011; 22 (5):1203-13.
  25. González MF, Husted BW, Aigner DJ. Opportunity discovery and creation in social entrepreneurship: An exploratory study in Mexico. J Bus Res. 2017 ;81:212-20.