فصلنامه علمی راهبرد

فصلنامه علمی راهبرد

بررسی اثر تصمیم‌گیری جمعی در افزایش عدالت اجتماعی با استفاده از مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده
سید محسن میرباقری
پسادکتری سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی پیشرفت، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران.
10.22034/rahbord.2024.466618.1684
چکیده
هدف این مقاله شناسایی شاخص‌های عقلانیت مشترک (به‌عنوان مبنایی برای تصمیم‌گیری مشترک)، تصمیم‌گیری جمعی و عدالت اجتماعی و سنجش نوع و میزان رابطه بین آن‌هاست. برای دستیابی به اهداف ابتدا یک مدل مفهومی با استفاده از پیشینه تحقیق و مصاحبه با خبرگان طراحی‌شده است. سپس روابط بین سنجه‌ها و سازه‌های این مدل به‌وسیله توزیع پرسش‌نامه در جامعه هدف بررسی شد. جامعه هدف مدیران سازمان‌های دولتی (در سطوح مدیریتی مختلف) هستند که از موضوع تصمیم‌گیری جمعی آگاهی داشتند و یا تجربه استفاده از آن را داشتند. در مدل مفهومی عقلانیت مشترک شامل چهار شاخص (تفکرات مشترک، اهداف مشترک، منافع مشترک و علایق مشترک)، تصمیم‌گیری جمعی شامل چهار شاخص (رأی‌گیری، اشتراک اطلاعات، مشورت و تیم‌سازی) و عدالت اجتماعی شامل چهار شاخص (کاهش تبعیض، کاهش فساد، توزیع قدرت و کاهش تعارض منافع) است. برای دستیابی به اهداف تحقیق از روش معادلات ساختاری و برای تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها از نرم‌افزار Smart PLS 2.0 استفاده شده است. برای بررسی برازش مدل کلی، از معیار نیکویی برازش (GOF) استفاده شده است که 516/0 به دست می‌آید و این معیار نشان می‌دهد برازش کلی مدل پژوهش مناسب است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد عقلانیت مشترک از طریق متغیر میانجی تصمیم‌گیری جمعی بر عدالت اجتماعی تأثیر می‌گذارد. یعنی اگر مدیران بخواهند از عقلانیت مشترک ایجاد شده برای افزایش عدالت استفاده کنند، نباید تصمیم‌گیری جمعی را نادیده بگیرند. این مقاله می‌تواند به حکمرانان و مدیران انگیزه دهد که بدون صرف هزینه‌های زیاد، برای افزایش عدالت اجتماعی از روش تصمیم‌گیری جمعی در امور مختلف استفاده کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
مشارکت
عدالت اجتماعی
تصمیم‌گیری جمعی
عقلانیت مشترک

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Investigating the Effect of Collective Decision-Making on Enhancing Social Justice Using Structural Equation Modeling

نویسنده English

Seyed Mohsen Mirbagheri
Post-doctorate in science and technology policy - Department of Management, Economics and Progress Engineering - Iran University of Science & Technology (IUST)
چکیده English

This article aims to identify the indicators of common rationality (as a basis for joint decision-making), collective decision-making, and social justice and measure the type and extent of the relationship between them. A conceptual model is designed to achieve the aims using the research background and interviews with experts. Then, the relationships between the measures and constructs of this model were investigated by distributing the questionnaire to the target population. The target community is the managers of government organizations (at different management levels) who are aware of collective decision-making or have experience using it. In the conceptual model, common rationality includes four indicators (common thoughts, common goals, common benefits, and common interests); collective decision-making consists of four indicators (voting, information sharing, meeting, and consultation); and social justice includes four indicators (reducing discrimination, reducing corruption, power distribution, and reducing conflict of interest). The structural equation method is used to achieve the research objectives, and Smart PLS 2.0 software is used to analyze the data. To evaluate the overall model fit, the goodness of fit (GOF) is used, which is obtained as 0.516, and this criterion indicates that the overall model fit of the research model is appropriate. The results indicate that common rationality affects social justice through the mediating variable of collective decision-making. Managers should not ignore collective decision-making if they want to use the common rationality created to increase justice. This study can motivate rulers and managers to use the collective decision-making method in various matters to increase social justice without spending a lot of money.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Participation
social justice
collective decision-making
common rationality
  • ابراهیمی‌خو (1396). پیش‌بینی ذهن آگاهی بر اساس سبک‌های تصمیم‌گیری و استدلال اخلاقی. دانشگاه پیام نور استان تهران، مرکز پیام نور تهران غرب.
  • کرمی (1396). بررسی مسائل و مشکلات تصمیم‌گیری گروهی. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت و حسابداری، شماره 6.
  • میرباقری، رفیعی آتانی (1401). طراحی الگوی تصمیم‌گیری جمعی با استفاده از مبانی اسلامی. مدیریت در دانشگاه اسلامی، 11(23)، 49–
  • میرباقری، رفیعی آتانی، پارسانژاد (1400). مروری نظام‌مند بر ادبیات تصمیم‌گیری جمعی. پژوهش‌های نوین در تصمیم‌گیری، 6(3)، 239–
  • میرباقری (1402). حکمرانی مشارکتی: روش‌ها و ابزارهای سیاسیِ آن در ایران. فصلنامه علمی راهبرد، 32(2)، 175–
  • میرباقری، رفیعی آتانی، پارسانژاد (1401). طراحی الگوی مفهومی حکمرانی مشارکتی در ایران: رویکرد داده بنیاد. فصلنامه علمی راهبرد، 31(2)، 195-218.
  • نجاری، معارفی (1395). بررسی اثر مشارکت در تصمیم‌گیری گروهی بر سازمان شاد با فرض متغیر میانجی اعتماد سازمانی (موردمطالعه: دانشگاه پیام نور استان خوزستان). فصلنامه پژوهش‌های مدیریت عمومی، 9(31)، 187–
  • Abri, M., Vosughi, S., Abolghasemi, J., Rahimi, J., & Ebrahimi, H. (2021). The effect of job security on safety behavior with the moderating role of salary: a structural equation model (SEM). International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, just-accepted, 1–15.
  • Barnard, R. T., & Turnbull, D. J. (2019). Discrimination and Social Justice: Questions of Diversity, Plurality, Representativeness, Measurability, and Doublespeak. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Civic and Political Studies, 14(2), 21–34.
  • Bessant, J. (2004). Procedural Justice, Conflict of Interest and the Stolen Generations. Case.
  • Birkeland, S., Linkhorst, T., Haakonsson, A., Barry, M. J., & Möller, S. (2020). Representativeness of personality and involvement preferences in a web-based survey on healthcare decision-making. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1–8.
  • Bisset, C. N., Dames, N., Oliphant, R., Alasadi, A., Anderson, D., Parson, S., Cleland, J., & Moug, S. J. (2020). Exploring shared surgical decision-making from the patient’s perspective: is the personality of the surgeon important? Colorectal Disease, 22(12), 2214–2221.
  • Bosel, T., Reinal, A., & Marshall, J. A. R. (2017). Collective decision-making. CURRENT OPINION IN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, 16, 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.03.004
  • Briffett Aktacs, C. (2024). Enhancing social justice and socially just pedagogy in higher education through participatory action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(1), 159–175.
  • Bui, T. X. (1987). A group decision support system for cooperative multiple criteria group decision making. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, Springer-Verlag.
  • Chegini, Z., & Islam, S. M. S. (2021). Shared-decision-making Behavior in Hospitalized Patients: Investigating the Impact of Patient’s Trust in Physicians, Emotional Support, Informational Support, and Tendency to Excuse Using a Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of Patient Experience, 8, 23743735211049660.
  • Cina, G., & Endriss, U. (2016). Proving classical theorems of social choice theory in modal logic. AUTONOMOUS AGENTS AND MULTI-AGENT SYSTEMS, 30(5), 963–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-016-9328-6
  • Clark, B. S., & Elliott, J. E. (2001). John Stuart Mill’s Theory of Justice. Review of Social Economy, 59(4), 467–490.
  • Colman, A. M. (2003). Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(2), 139–153.
  • Crossley, S. (2017). The’official’social justice: an examination of the Coalition government’s concept of social justice. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25(1), 21–33.
  • De Oca, M. A., Ferrante, E., Scheidler, A., Pinciroli, C., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2011). Majority-rule opinion dynamics with differential latency: a mechanism for self-organized collective decision-making. SWARM INTELLIGENCE, 5(3–4, 1, SI), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-011-0062-z
  • Devika, R., Harikrishna, M., & Anjaneyulu, M. (2020). Influence of psychological factors in mode choice decision making: a structural equation modeling approach. Transportation Research Procedia, 48, 2821–2830.
  • Dionne, S. D., Sayama, H., & Yammarino, F. J. (2019). Diversity and Social Network Structure in Collective Decision Making: Evolutionary Perspectives with Agent-Based Simulations. COMPLEXITY. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7591072
  • Ekwoaba, J., Ufodiama, N., & Enyinnaya, E. I. (2019). Participative Decision Making and Organisational Performance: A Snapshot Survey of Nigerian Oil and Gas Sector. Ilorin Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(1), 13–28.
  • Elster, J. (2020). Enthusiasm and anger in history. Inquiry, 1–59.
  • Fondacaro, M. R., & Weinberg, D. (2002). Concepts of social justice in community psychology: Toward a social ecological epistemology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 473–492.
  • Franks, N. R., Dornhaus, A., Fitzsimmons, J. P., & Stevens, M. (2003). Speed versus accuracy in collective decision making. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 270(1532), 2457–2463. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2527
  • Ganzer-Ripoll, J., Criado, N., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Parsons, S., & Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2019). Combining Social Choice Theory and Argumentation: Enabling Collective Decision Making. GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 28(1), 127–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9594-6
  • Hülle, S., Liebig, S., & May, M. J. (2018). Measuring attitudes toward distributive justice: The basic social justice orientations scale. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 663–692.
  • Iaryczower, M., Shi, X., & Shum, M. (2018). Can Words Get in the Way? The Effect of Deliberation in Collective Decision Making. JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 126(2), 688–734.
  • Karimi, N., & Emami, A. (2021). Women’s fear of crime in residential open spaces: a structural equation model. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1–24.
  • Khaluf, Y., Ferrante, E., Simoens, P., & Huepe, C. (2017). Scale invariance in natural and artificial collective systems: a review. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 14(136), 20170662.
  • Kiani, Z., Simbar, M., Dolatian, M., & Zayeri, F. (2020). Structural equation modeling of psychosocial determinants of health for the empowerment of Iranian women in reproductive decision making. BMC Women’s Health, 20(1), 1–9.
  • Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making. GROUP PROCESSES & INTERGROUP RELATIONS, 14(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210372524
  • Liang, F., Tan, Q., Zhan, Y., Wu, X., & Li, J. (2021). Selfish or altruistic? The influence of thinking styles and stereotypes on moral decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110465.
  • Lloyd, A., Joseph-Williams, N., Edwards, A., Rix, A., & Elwyn, G. (2013). Patchy `coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC). IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-102
  • Makinson, J. C., Schaerf, T. M., Wagner, N., Oldroyd, B. P., & Beekman, M. (2017). Collective decision making in the red dwarf honeybee Apis florea: do the bees simply follow the flowers? INSECTES SOCIAUX, 64(4), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-017-0577-4
  • Mann, R. P. (2018). Collective decision making by rational individuals. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 115(44), E10387–E10396. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811964115
  • Mann, R. P. (2020). Collective decision-making by rational agents with differing preferences. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 117(19), 10388–10396. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000840117
  • Marks, P., Gerrits, L., & Marx, J. (2019). How to use fitness landscape models for the analysis of collective decision-making: a case of theory-transfer and its limitations. BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9669-4
  • McHugh, K. A., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Serban, A., Sayama, H., & Chatterjee, S. (2016). Collective decision making, leadership, and collective intelligence: Tests with agent-based simulations and a Field study. LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 27(2, SI), 218–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.001
  • Miceli, S., de Palo, V., Monacis, L., Di Nuovo, S., & Sinatra, M. (2018). Do personality traits and self-regulatory processes affect decision-making tendencies? Australian Journal of Psychology, 70(3), 284–293.
  • Moroni, S. (2020). The just city. Three background issues: Institutional justice and spatial justice, social justice and distributive justice, concept of justice and conceptions of justice. Planning Theory, 19(3), 251–267.
  • Nazari, M., Riahi, L., Tabibi, S. J., & Farahani, M. M. M. (2019). FACTORS AFFECTING DECISION-MAKING IN OUTSOURCING HEALTH SERVICES USING A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING APPROACH. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8(27), 2137–2144.
  • Novella-Garcia, C., & Cloquell-Lozano, A. (2021). The ethics of maxima and minima combined with social justice as a form of public corruption prevention. Crime, Law and Social Change, 75(3), 281–295.
  • Palmiero, M., Nori, R., Piccardi, L., & D’Amico, S. (2020). Divergent Thinking: The Role of Decision-Making Styles. Creativity Research Journal, 32(4), 323–332.
  • Perea, A. (2022). Common belief in rationality in games with unawareness. Mathematical Social Sciences, 119, 11–30.
  • Pratt, S. C., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2006). A tunable algorithm for collective decision-making. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 103(43), 15906–15910. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604801103
  • Quaschning, K., Körner, M., & Wirtz, M. (2013). Analyzing the effects of shared decision-making, empathy and team interaction on patient satisfaction and treatment acceptance in medical rehabilitation using a structural equation modeling approach. Patient Education and Counseling, 91(2), 167–175.
  • Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2004). A theory of justice. In Ethics (pp. 229–234). Routledge.
  • Rossi, F. (2014). Collective decision making: a great opportunity for constraint reasoning. CONSTRAINTS, 19(2), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-013-9153-3
  • Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Moisescu, O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531–554.
  • Staples, L. (2012). Community organizing for social justice: Grassroots groups for power. Social Work with Groups, 35(3), 287–296.
  • Sueur, C., King, A. J., Conradt, L., Kerth, G., Lusseau, D., Mettke-Hofmann, C., Schaffner, C. M., Williams, L., Zinner, D., & Aureli, F. (2011). Collective decision-making and fission-fusion dynamics: a conceptual framework. OIKOS, 120(11), 1608–1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19685.x
  • Tongo, C. (2015). Collective work motivation in knowledge based organizations. TEAM PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, 21(7–8), 386+. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2015-0030
  • Tuley, M., Cater, P. B., & Jones Jr, E. E. (1983). Social justice programs target discrimination, employment. Hospital Progress, 64(3), 52–70.
  • Van Deemen, A., & Rusinowska, A. (2010). Collective decision making: Views from social choice and game theory (Vol. 43). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Wendorf, C. A., Alexander, S., & Firestone, I. J. (2002). Social justice and moral reasoning: An empirical integration of two paradigms in psychological research. Social Justice Research, 15(1), 19–39.
  • Wu, B., Zhou, X., Jin, Q., Lin, F., & Leung, H. (2017). Analyzing Social Roles Based on a Hierarchical Model and Data Mining for Collective Decision-Making Support. IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, 11(1), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2386611
  • Xu, Y. (2019). Collective decision-making of voters with heterogeneous levels of rationality. PUBLIC CHOICE, 178(1–2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-00627-7
  • Yilmaz, S., & Kafadar, H. (2020). Investigating the relationship between decision-making processes and cognitive processes, personality traits, and affect via the structural equation model in young adults. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 27(6), 558–569.
  • Zajda, J., Majhanovich, S., & Rust, V. (2006). Introduction: Education and social justice. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l’Education, 9–22.
  • Zellner, M., Watkins, C., Massey, D., Westphal, L., Brooks, J., & Ross, K. (2014). Advancing Collective Decision-Making Theory with Integrated Agent-Based Modeling and Ethnographic Data Analysis: An Example in Ecological Restoration. JASSS-THE JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SIMULATION, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2605

  • تاریخ دریافت 17 تیر 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 24 مهر 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 25 مهر 1403