A Comparative Study of the Staff's Psychological Empowerment in the Iranian Islamic Azad Universities and Universities of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study identifies the empowerment dimensions of the staff of the Islamic Azad University of Iran and Canadian universities through understanding the key role of staff in the success of universities. The method used in this research was comparative with a mixed approach (quantitative-qualitative) and the required data were collected through in-deep interview and a researcher-made questionnaire. The statistical sample of the qualitative section consisted of 18 experts and that of the quantitative section included all staff of the selected branches of Islamic Azad University and selected universities of Canada. For qualitative data analysis in content analysis we used Delphi technique, and the inferential statistics were used for quantitative data analysis. In the first step, through a secondary analysis of theoretical foundations and interviews with experts, a model of psychological empowerment with 14 components was identified. First-order and second-order confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the ideal relationship between the 14 components with the psychological empowerment construct. Based on the confirmatory factor analysis, the model for assessing the staff's psychological empowerment constructs of the studied universities had an appropriate fit (proper desirability) and the components covered the psychological empowerment construct. One-sample t-test was used to investigate the level of attention paid by the university to the staffs' psychological empowerment components. Based on the findings, both universities resemble each other in terms of the components of "effectiveness, significance, and feeling of competence, proper appreciation, job enrichment, and effective organizational communication, optimization of processes and methods, and educational processes". The research findings also explain the difference between the two universities, such that the level of attention to the components of "right to choose, organizational commitment, transparency in goals and knowledge and job experiences" at Islamic Azad University of Iran and the level of attention to the component of "work environment revitalization" in Canadian universities are poor and lower than the test value for the staff's psychological empowerment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".