آسیب ها و راهکارهای ارزیابی برون دادهای پژوهشی علوم انسانی مطالعه موردی رشته های زبان و ادبیات.

Purpose: In addition to the distinction between the field of humanities and other sciences in terms of their nature and research goals, different disciplines within the humanities also possess distinct characteristics. This study aims to identify the disadvantages of evaluating humanities research outputs, with a specific focus on the fields of language and literature. It also aims to provide solutions to improve the evaluation of researchers in these areas. Methodology: The present study is an applied type research with a qualitative content analysis method. The study's statistical population included faculty members from language and literature fields with various Persian and non-Persian orientations (English, Arabic, French, German, and Chinese) in Iran. The research sample consisted of 24 individuals, including 19 men and 5 women who were at least Assistant professors from 8 universities: Isfahan, Tarbiat Modarres, Tehran, Al-Zahra, Shahid Chamran Ahvaz, Shiraz, Allameh Tabatabaei, and Ferdowsi of Mashhad. The participants were selected using targeted sampling and the snowball method. The semi-structured interview was used as a research tool, and MAXQDA 2020 qualitative data analysis software was utilized for coding. Theoretical coding involves three stages: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. To ensure credibility, the opinions of two coders were sought. Also, the results of the coding were sent to three interviewees who played a significant role in expressing injuries and proposing solutions. They were asked to comment on the compatibility of the extracted codes with their own experiences. The terms and details of the work are explained in detail within the plan for the transferability criterion. In order to measure dependability, all the stages and processes of the research were recorded and reported accurately from the beginning to the end, mentioning the details of the data analysis, and excerpts from the text of the interviews were presented. For confirmability, the findings were provided to 5 interviewees and peers to express their opinions about the results. Findings: Evaluation harms were identified through 62 codes. The concept of science production and the promotion of knowledge foundations were investigated in two general areas (humanities) and a specific area (language and literature) with different components. The general area includes the establishment of policies for evaluating research output, the inclusion of research output ratings in promotion regulations, and considerations of research ethics. The specific area includes the evaluation of research outputs in the promotion regulations, publications, international article publications, theoretical contributions, research style of faculty members, and literary and creative works. The concept of practicality and addressing societal issues also encompasses two aspects: disconnecting the relationship between language and literature fields and society, and teaching language and literature fields. The solutions were presented in the form of 34 codes. The concept of science production and the promotion of knowledge foundations were investigated in two general areas (humanities) and a specific area (language and literature) with different components. The general area includes the development of policies for evaluating research output, the inclusion of research output ratings in promotion regulations, and the improvement of research facilities and resources. The specific area includes the evaluation of research outputs in the promotion regulations, the research approach of faculty members, and research facilities. The concept of practicality and addressing societal issues also encompasses two aspects of applied research: the connection between the disciplines of language and literature and society. Conclusion: If the evaluation is conducted accurately and comprehensively, and it clearly indicates the gap between the current situation and the desired outcome, it will minimize trial and error in this field and reduce costs associated with ineffective and unnecessary tasks. It accelerates the steps towards success and progress. The essence of evaluation is optimizing performance. The competition to obtain the best scientific position among researchers, educational groups, and research institutes has gained great importance and momentum. The health of such a competition and its correct orientation will be possible through planning for accurate evaluation, and a review of the evaluation policy of academic faculty members of universities and higher education is one of the fundamental needs in this direction. The results of the present study can be utilized as an effective measure to enhance the current situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]