‫ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪www.onlinedoctranslator.

com -‬‬

‫ﻭﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺠﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺗﻬﻢ ﻣﺤﻠﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪:‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻧﺠﺎﺡﺃﻭ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ .‬ﺑﺪﺍﻫﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﻧﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺈﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺯﻭﺍﻳﺎﻩ ﻭﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺛﻐﺮﺍﺕ‪.‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﺩﻳﻠﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺩﻳﻠﻴﻮﻥ )‪ (2002‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬ﻣﻨﺬ ]ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺡ ﻻﺳﻮﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻥﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍً ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ[‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻛﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪﺟﺎء ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﻭﺫﻫﺐ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﺮﺍﻭﻏﺔ« )ﺹ‪ .(467 .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪﺍﺟﺘﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺷﻮﻓﻴﻠﺪ )‪ (2001‬ﻳﻌﺰﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡﺍﻷﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ‪ (1 :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻭ ‪ (2‬ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪1.1‬ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺇﻥﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻬﻢ ﻣﻘﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬

‫ﻋﺎﻡ‪.‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺻﺮﻳﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺇﻧﺠﺎﺯﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺧﻄﻂ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻌﺎً ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻜﺎﻣﻼً‬
‫ﻟﻤﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻌﻴﻞﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤﻮﻥ‬

‫‪11‬‬
 ‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺎ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻧﻈﺮﺍ ﻟﻠﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﻟﻞ‬
‫ﻗﻴﺎﺱﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻂ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪.‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔﺗﻐﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺤﻜﻢﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺃﻥﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻭﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎًﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻭﺩﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻫﺎ؟‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﺟﺪﺍً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺭﻛﺰﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﻋﺎﻡ )ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺦ(‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤِّﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻭﻻﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ "ﺭﺳﻤﻴﺔ" ﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻄﺔ ﺑﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻏﺬﺕ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻥﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻚ ﺳﻴﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻻ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺂﺛﺎﺭﻫﺎﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ًﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﻬﺎ ﻭﺭﺑﻄﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻭﺭﻓﺎﻗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺪﺭﻙﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (2003‬ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺘﻜﻴﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‪:‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﻟﺘﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻟﻴﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﻴﻦ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬

‫ﻫﻮﻫﻤﺎﻥﻭﺷﻴﺮ‪) «.(2002 ،‬ﺹ‪ .(335 .‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻂ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎً ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً‬
‫ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ)ﻣﻴﻬﺎﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2008 ،.‬ﻳﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻭﻥ‬

‫‪12‬‬
 ‫ﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﺎﺗﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ؛ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﺗﻔﻀﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﻴﻦ؛ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﻋﻤﻼﺉﻬﺎ؛ ﺿﺒﻂ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ؛ﺇﻟﺦ‪) .‬ﺩﻭﺳﻨﺒﻴﺮﻱ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;2003 ,.‬ﺃﻭﻛﻮﻧﻮﺭ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪.(2007 ،.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻣﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ‬

‫ﻣﺜﻴﺮﺓﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﻣﺘﻤﺎﺳﻜﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺳﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎً )‪Ridde and Dagenais, 2012, Rossi and‬ﻛﻮﻝ‪.(2004 ،.‬‬

‫ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎً ﺑﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ )‪ Scheirer‬ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،(2012 ،.‬ﻭ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ )ﺑﺎﺳﻜﻮﺍﻝ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ (2011 ،.‬ﺑﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢﻭﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ .‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﺑﺎﻛﺮ )‪ (2002‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ"ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ]‪ [...‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺟﻤﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ"‬
‫)ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺣﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪ .(6‬ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺑﺪء ﺃﻱ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞﻣﻊ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ )ﺑﺎﺳﻜﻮﺍﻝ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ (2011 ،.‬ﻹﻋﻄﺎء ﺃ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﻰﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ‪ .‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺘﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻮﺛﻖ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﺑﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻠﺐﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ )‪Fixsen et‬ﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;2009 ,2005 ,.‬ﺷﻴﺮﻳﺮ‪1994 ،‬؛‬
‫ﺳﻤﺮﻓﻴﻠﺖ‪ .(2003،‬ﻳﺠﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﻮﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (2003‬ﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻢﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﻫﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﺒﻞﺳﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‬

‫ﻳﻌﻤﻞﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻊ )ﻣﺎﻳﻨﺎﺭﺩ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،(2013 ،.‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺃﻥﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺃ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺼﺮﻣﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ‪.‬‬

‫‪13‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪،‬ﻭﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ )‪،Penuel and Means‬‬
‫‪ (1 :(2004‬ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎء‪ (2 .‬ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﻭ ‪ (3‬ﺗﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻻء ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫)ﺑﺎﻛﺮ‪.(2002 ،‬‬

‫ﺗﺪﻋﻮﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﻪ‬

‫ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎً‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﺤﺪﺩ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ؛ ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ .‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹﻳﺠﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺃ‬
‫ﻫﻞﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ؟‬

‫ﻇﻬﺮﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ" ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ‪،‬‬

‫ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺣﺪﺩﻧﺎ ﺃ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻮﻻء‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺰﺍﻫﺔ‪،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻻء‬
‫ﻳﺸﻴﺮﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻊ)ﺑﺎﻛﺮ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺑﺮﻳﺘﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2010 ،.‬ﺩﻭﺳﻨﺒﻴﺮﻱ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2003 ،.‬ﻧﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﺟﻞ‪،‬‬
‫‪.(2010‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰﻋﻜﺲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‬

‫"ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭ" )ﺭﻭﺟﺮﺯ‪ (1995 ،‬ﺃﻭ "ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ"‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪،‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺴﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪.(2009 ،.‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻑّﺑﺎﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ‪:‬‬

‫]ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻣﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ[ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻤﺪ ﺃﻭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ :‬ﺃ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺬﻑﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ )ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻨﺎﺕ( ﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ؛ )ﺏ( ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ؛ ﺝ( ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ؛ )ﺩ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،2002) « .‬ﺹ ‪(4‬‬

‫‪14‬‬
 ‫ﻓﻲﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ‪ ،‬ﻟﻸﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﺤﺔ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ‪" :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ"‪ .‬ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻬﺎ "ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻀﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ "‪...‬‬
‫«ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‪) .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺣﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻛﺮ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺹ ‪(5‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻻﺗﻮﻟﻲ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺍ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻛﻌﻨﺼﺮﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺪﻳﺘﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻣﻀﺔ )ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2006 ،.‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺤﺪﺙﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ "ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎً‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ" )ﺳﻜﻮﻟﻴﺘﺲ ﻭﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩﺯ‪ ،(2010 ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻋﻜﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺔ)ﻧﺎﻟﻴﺒﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﺟﻞ‪ .(2010 ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺛﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎءﺍﺕﻣﻌﺎ‪" .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﺎً ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩﺍً‬
‫ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ‪(Penuel and Means, 2004, p. 295) ".‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻴﺰﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻭ‬

‫ﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻻﺣﻆﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻓﺈﺿﺎءﺓﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﻴﺐ‪.‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً‪ .‬ﻫﻮ‬

‫‪15‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺺ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ – ﺑﻤﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ – ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺟﺪﺍً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲﺣﺪﺩﻫﺎ ‪ DeLeon‬ﻭ(‪ DeLeon )2002‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻣﻨُﻔﺬّ‪.‬ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﺪﺩﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﻛﺠﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻣﺨﺎﻃﺮ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ– ﺑﻤﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ – ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢﺛﺮﺍء ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﺟﻬﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺪﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻭﺇﺛﺮﺍﺉﻬﺎ ﺃﻣﺮﺍً ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺎً ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻤﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺎﺏﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪.‬‬

‫‪1.2‬ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪﺃﺛﺮﻧﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻧﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ‬

‫ﺑﻴﻦﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺦ(‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺎ‪،‬ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﺍ ًﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪.2007‬‬

‫‪16‬‬
 ‫ﺇﻥﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ‪ LPJ‬ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻉ ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪3156.1‬ﻭ ‪4156.2‬ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﻲء‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪.‬ﻭﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺧﻤﺲﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺳﻨﺮﻯﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺘﻴﻦ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﻣﺘﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻉ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺴﻴﻖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‪.‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻻﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﺷﺨﺼﻴﺎﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﺍﺕﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﺮﺑﻂ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺛﺖﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﻮﻋﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﺃﺟﻞ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻮﺟﺰﺍ‬

‫ﻧﺸﺄﺓ‪ ،LPJ‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،2007‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺟﺮﻳﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻨﺬﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻔﻴﻴﻦ ﺣﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺣﺘﻰﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺅﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﻲ ‪ 2011‬ﻭ‪ 2015‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻘﻮﻕﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ )‪ (CDPDJ‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﺎﻓﺮ ‪ FRQSC‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 1-1‬ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎً ﻟﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺅﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .156.13‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻋﺪ ﺃﻗﺼﺎﻩ ‪ 9‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪ ،2010‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺧﻤﺲ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﺼﻮﺍﺏ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﺯﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝﺃﻭ ﻭﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻀﻮﻥ ‪ 30‬ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻧﻌﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻏﻀﻮﻥ‪ 30‬ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺉﻨﺎﻑ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪. .‬‬

‫‪ .156.24‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،156.1‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺸﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﻃﻔﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﻀﺎء ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪17‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪ :1-1‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺣﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻋﺎﻡ ‪LPJ 2007‬‬

‫‪2015‬‬ ‫‪2010-2011‬‬
‫‪-‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪-‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻭﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ‬ ‫‪CDPDJ‬‬
‫‪-‬ﺍﻹﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻸﻭﺍﻣﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-‬ﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺜﻒ‬
‫‪-‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﺛﺮ ﺱﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮء ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺴﻴﺐ ﻭ‬ ‫‪-‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪LPJ‬‬ ‫ﺇﻡﺇﺱ ﺇﺱ ﺇﺱ‬

‫ﺷﻜﻠﻴﺔﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ ﺱﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺱﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﻭﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺱﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺱﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫‪-‬ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻴﻦ ﻭﺑﻴﺉﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻣﻦﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎﻝ‬ ‫‪-‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺸﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻸﻃﻔﺎﻝﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ LPJ‬ﺣﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﻳﻠﻘﻲﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ‪ CDPDJ‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 2011‬ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻐﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎء ﻭﻣﺠﺎﻟﺲ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻴﻖ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﻬﺎ‬

‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕﻋﻠﻰ ‪) LPJ‬ﻛﻴﺒﻴﻚ‪ .(2011 ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺗﺸﻜﻞﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﺓﺍﻹﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺜﻒ‪ CDPDJ ،‬ﻳﺜﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺳﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺖ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ‪CDPDJ‬‬
‫ﻋﺪﺓﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﻣﺎﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ‪ CDPDJ‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺮ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 2015‬ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،2011‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬

‫ﻗﺎﻣﺖﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ CJs‬ﻭ‪ CSSS‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ )ﻛﻴﺒﻴﻚ‪ .(2015 ،‬ﺗﻢ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺇﺻﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺷﺒﻜﺔﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ‬

‫‪18‬‬
 ‫ﻛﻤﺎﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻸﻭﺍﻣﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ‪ 10‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ “ﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ‪ DYP‬ﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪) " .‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﺎﺑﻴﻠﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ‪ ،CDPDJ، 2015‬ﺹ‪ .(32 .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺗﺎﻥ‪ 92‬ﻭ‪ 93‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ - LPJ‬ﺍﻟﻠﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻨﺼﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻳﺼﺪﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﺄﺧﻴﺮ ‪،-‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻛﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻮﻕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻨﺔ ﺑﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺓﺗﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺄﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻘﺎﺭﻳﺮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ‪ ،MSSS‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﺎﻓﺮ ‪ FRQSC‬ﻭ‪ .MSSS‬ﻭﺭﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ LPJ‬ﻭﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ‪،2010‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺭﻛﻮﺕﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ ﻧﺸﺮﻭﺍ ﻓﻲ ‪1‬ﺇﻳﻪﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ .LPJ‬ﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮﻣﻮﺛﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ‪1‬ﺇﻳﻪﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻩﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﺎً ﺑﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﻧﺐﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻋﻤﻼء ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ )‪ .(PIJ‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺛﺎﺭﺍﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺍﻧﺨﻔﺎﺽ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻞ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻬﺪﻑﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺅﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،2015‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺴﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‪،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺩﻋﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻀﻠﺔ ﻭﻣﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻊ)ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2015 ،.‬ﻓﻲ ‪2‬ﻩﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻡﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﻭﺃﻭﻟﻴﺎء ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺉﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻝﺍﻟﻮﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ )ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪.(2015 ،.‬‬

‫ﺃﻣﺎﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺗﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺸﻒﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 2011‬ﻋﻦ ﺃﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺣﺮﺝ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻶﺑﺎء ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻬﺎﺕ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻨﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺉﻨﺎﻑﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﺪﺩﺗﻬﺎ ‪ .LPJ‬ﻧﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺿﺢﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟـ ﺃ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ )ﺑﻨﻄﻴﺐ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺑﻨﻄﻴﺐ‪2011 ،‬؛ ﺟﻮﻳﻴﺖ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪,.‬‬

‫‪19‬‬
 ‫‪ ;2011‬ﺗﻮﺭﻛﻮﺕ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2011 ،2010 ،.‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕﻟﻠﺸﺒﺎﺏ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺟﺮﻳﺖ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬

‫ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ LPJ‬ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ .2007‬ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﺢ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕﻣﻨﺘﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻟﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺄﻥﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪1.3‬ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬

‫ﻭﺑﻨﺎءﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻊﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﻘﻖ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺓﻋﺎﻟﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﻭﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻠﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ )‪ .(LPJ‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ‬
‫ﺃﻥﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ LPJ‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪2007‬‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺟﺮﺍﻫﺎ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻗﻀﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻵﻟﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺛﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺘﻢﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﻬﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺟﻮﺩﺓﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦﺛﻢ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬ﻣﺎ ﻭﺭﺍء‬

‫ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ؟‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻥ‪:‬‬

‫‪20‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ – ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ‬ ‫•‬

‫ﺇﻥﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﻛﺠﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺃﻭﺳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﺠﺮﺩﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻴﺔﺗﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﻗﻴﺔﻭﻣﻮﺛﻘﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -1‬ﻣﺎﻫﻮ ﺃﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ؟‬

‫‪ -2‬ﻛﻴﻒﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‬

‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ؟‬

‫‪ -3‬ﻛﻴﻒﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ؟‬

‫‪ -4‬ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔﺩﻣﺞ ﻭﺗﻔﻌﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻝ‬

‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ؟‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰءﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ‬ ‫•‬

‫ﻣﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ‬

‫ﻧﻬﺞﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺎﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ 2007‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﻨﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺎ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺎﻡ ‪ 2007‬ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺤﺎﻛﻤﺎﺕ‬

‫ﻛﻴﺒﻴﻚ‪:‬‬

‫‪-1‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﻗﻀﺎﺉﻲ ﺑﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪LPJ‬؟‬

‫‪21‬‬
 ‫‪ -2‬ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪LPJ‬؟‬

‫‪ -3‬ﻛﻴﻒﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ‪ CJ‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ؟‬

‫‪ -4‬ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺮ ‪ CJs‬ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ؟‬

‫ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺅﻩ ﻭﺗﻌﻤﻴﻤﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ‪ LPJ‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -1‬ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ‬

‫ﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻲ‪CJ‬؟‬

‫‪ -2‬ﻛﻴﻒﻓﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ‬

‫ﻣﻦ‪LPJ‬؟‬

‫‪ -3‬ﻛﻴﻒﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻮﻩ ﺫﺍ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ؟‬

‫ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ؟‬

‫‪ -4‬ﻛﻴﻒﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺛﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ‪ LPJ‬ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ؟‬

‫ﻓﻬﻞﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ؟‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﻓﻨﻲ ؟‬

‫ﻣﺪﻯﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -1‬ﻣﺎﻫﻮ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ CJ‬ﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪LPJ‬؟‬

‫‪ -2‬ﻣﺎﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪CJ‬؟‬

‫ﻟﻮﺻﻒﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬

‫ﺑﻴﻦ‪ ،CJs‬ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﻧﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ )ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ ،5‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ ،6‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ ،(7‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮء‬
‫ﺳﻴﺘﻢﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ CJ‬ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ )ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ .(8‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻨﻲ‬

‫‪22‬‬
 ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ CJ‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ)ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ .(9‬ﻭﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻹﻋﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﻟﻬﺆﻻء ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ‪) CJ‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪.(10‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺍﻷﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺃﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺛﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻋﻀﻮﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻭﻧﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺨﺪﻡ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﻳﻠﺒﻲ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺗﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ‪.‬‬

‫‪23‬‬
24
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪ :‬ﻓﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﺏ‬

‫ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎًﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﺈﻃﺎﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ‬

‫ﻫﺬﺍﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎ ﻭﻋﻴﻮﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﻮﺹ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺰﻭﻝ‪.‬ﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻡ‪.‬ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻞ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﺳﻨﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻭﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕﺣﻮﻝ ﻓﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻤﻬﺎ‪ (1:‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪ (2‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ )ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪،‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻢﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ( ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻡﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻭﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﻓﺸﻠﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻐﺬﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ .‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍً ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﻜﻤﻞ ﻟﻸﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻄﺮﺡ ﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬

‫ﻓﻲﺃﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﻭﻟﺉﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺸﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫‪25‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻗﻞ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪﻣﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺆﻻء‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻋﺪﺩﺍ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﻢ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻨﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﻬﺎ‬

‫ﺗﻀﻊﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻗﻮﺍﺉﻢ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺰﺯ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﻨﺎﺟﺢ )ﺑﻴﺮﻧﻴﻴﻪ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺩﻭﺭﻻﻙ ﻭﺩﻭﺑﺮﻱ‪2008 ،‬؛ ﺟﻴﺮﺳﺘﻮﻥ‪2004 ،‬؛‬
‫ﻫﺎﺳﻴﻨﺘﻮﻓﻴﻞ‪2008،‬؛ ﻓﺎﻳﻤﺮ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﻴﻨﺞ‪ .(2011 ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ‪ (1 :‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺈﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺴﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ؛ ‪ (2‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦﻭﺻﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻼءﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎً ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﺎﺗﻼﻧﺪ )‪ (1995‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺣﺘﻰﺍﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺗﺠﻬﺖ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻗﻮﺍﺉﻢ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪.‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺠﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻮﻗﻊ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺗﻢ ﺗﺠﺎﻫﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻤﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ‪ .[…] .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱﻳﺠﻤﻊ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻫﺎﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻔﺎﻗﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪).‬ﺹ‪(153 .‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻧﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﻲ‪ .‬ﺑﺤﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﺎﺟﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺫﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍً‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﻮﺹ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻤﺔ‪،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻫﺆﻻء‬
‫ﻭﻳﺠﺐﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺉﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪.‬‬

‫‪26‬‬
 ‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﻤﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺷﻤﻮﻻ ًﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔﺍﻟﺤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺻﻠﻨﺎ ﻛﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻠﺞ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺗﻤﻜﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺒﻠﻴﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﺼﻮﺻﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻊ‪.‬‬

‫‪2.1‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻭﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻓﻘﺎﻟﺘﻮﺭﺟﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﺳﺎﻓﺎﺭﺩ )‪“ ،(2012‬ﺇﻥ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪) « .‬ﺹ‪ .(3‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻃﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻻﺳﻮﻳﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1956‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎءﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻬﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻡ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻧﻤﺎﺫﺝﻣﺘﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ‬
‫ﻻﺳﻮﻳﻞ‪،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺟﻮﻧﺰ )‪ .(1970‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻻﺣﻖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻗﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺣﻞ‪،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍً ﻟﻠﻔﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )‪.(Hassenteufel, 2008; Sabatier 2007‬‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﻧﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺗﺠﻨﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ( ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻛﺈﻃﺎﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﻳﺤﺪﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻠﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡﻣﻘﻴﻤﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫)ﻛﻴﺮﻧﻲ‪.(2011 ،‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺮﺽﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ )ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ‪2000 ،‬؛ ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺩﻭﺭﻥ ﻭﻓﻴﺪ‪1992 ،‬؛ ﻫﺎﺳﻴﻨﺘﻮﻓﻴﻞ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2008‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻭﻭﻳﺠﺮﻳﺘﺶ‪2007 ،‬؛ ﻣﻮﻟﺮ‪2009 ،‬؛ ﺳﺎﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮ‪ ،(2007 ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻻﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ "ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ"‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )‪;Birkland, 2010; Hassenteuffel, 2008‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﻟﺮ‪ ،2009،‬ﺳﺎﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮ‪ .(2007 ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬

‫‪27‬‬
 ‫ﺩﻭﺍﺉﺮ]…[‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻛﺈﻃﺎﺭ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪) «.‬ﻛﻴﺮﻧﻲ‪ ،2011 ،‬ﺹ ‪(6‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻓﺎﺉﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻟﺰ ﺟﻮﻧﺰ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪1970‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﻧﻬﺠﺎً ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺎً ﻭﺗﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﺎً ﻳﺼﻔﻪ ﻫﺎﺳﻴﻨﺘﻮﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ "]‪ [...‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺩﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔﻭ]ﺇﻋﻄﺎء[ ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﺘﺪﻓﻖ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻠﺴﻞﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺴﻠﺴﻼﺕ ﻣﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ‪) « .‬ﻫﺎﺳﻴﻨﺘﻮﻓﻴﻞ‪ ،2008 ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(28‬ﻭﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﻮﺭﻩ ﺟﻴﻤﺲ ﺇﻱ ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1975‬ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺳﻼﻓﻪ)‪ ،(Hassenteufel، 2008‬ﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺑﺴﺎﻃﺘﻪ ﻭﺭﺅﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﺒﺮ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭﻫﻮ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﻳﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ ﺯﻣﻨﻲ؛ ﻭﻓﻮﻕ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )ﻛﻴﺮﻧﻲ‪،2011 ،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪ .(41.‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻳﺎﺗﻪ )‪ ،(Cairney, 2011; Hassenteufel, 2008‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺑﻬﺪﻑ "ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺘﻬﺎ"‬
‫)ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ‪ ،2003 ،‬ﺹ ‪.(24‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﻮﻟﺮ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ‪،‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻴﻦﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺗﺪﻓﻘﺎ ًﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺍ ً‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕﻭﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦﻛﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺍﺯﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻭﺗﻌﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،2009) .‬ﺹ ‪(27‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺩﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻤﺮ ﺑﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﻢﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﺤﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺤﻦﻣﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂﺑﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎ ًﻭﺛﻴﻘﺎ ًﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ)ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺳﺎﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮ ‪ (2007‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ‬

‫‪28‬‬
 ‫ﺫﺍﺕﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﻬﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻏﺐﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ )ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ‪2000 ،‬؛ ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪ .(2010 ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻝ‬
‫ﺟﻮﻧﺰ)‪ ،(1970‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺿﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺎﻃﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺗﺒﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔﻫﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺗﻔﺘﺮﺿﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻮﺍﻝ ﺃ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﻣﻨﻈﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻻﺳﻮﻳﻞ )‪ (1956‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ )‪ ،(2003‬ﻣﻦ‬

‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﺍﻟﺨﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﺤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ "ﻭﺍﺿﻌﻲ" ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﺘﺮﻣﻮﺍ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺨﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻝﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﻌﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪.‬ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻟﻮﺍﺉﺢ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻓﺮﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﻦ )ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮﺍﻷﻭﻝ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺼﺤﻮﺑﺎً ﺑﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺳﻼﻣﺔﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﺩﻗﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺉﺔ )ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ،(2000‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﺄﺗﻲ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﻨﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻀﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻓﻀﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‬

‫ﻭﻳﺘﻢﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ )ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻣﻬﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺦ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺦ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﻤﻞﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ)ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻼﺉﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ(‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻳﻤﺮ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﻴﻨﺞ‬
‫)‪ (2011‬ﺣﺘﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺃﻭﺳﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻢ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ‬

‫‪30‬‬
 ‫ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺘﻪﻭﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺑﻘﺒﻮﻟﻪ ﺭﺳﻤﻴﺎً ﻛﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻻﺉﺤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻱ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ )‪ .(Weimer and Vining، 2011‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎﺕ ﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻷﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﻛﻨﻮﺑﻔﻴﻞ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪،(2007‬‬
‫"ﻳﺴُﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺉﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ‪) « .‬ﺹ‪ .(187‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﺏ)ﺑﻴﻜﺮ‪2002 ،‬؛ ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺟﻴﺮﺳﺘﻮﻥ‪2004 ،‬؛ ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ‪2002 ،‬؛ ﻛﻨﻮﺑﻔﻴﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;2006 ,.‬ﻻﺳﻜﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺟﺎﻟﻴﻪ‪2007 ،‬؛ ﻣﺎﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﺎﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮ‪1983 ،‬؛ ﺳﺘﻴﻢ‪(2010 ،‬‬
‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ )ﺃﻭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺠﻌﻞﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ "ﻗﻤﺔ‪-‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﺖ«ﺃﻭ "ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ«ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‪ .‬ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ )‪ (2000‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻬﺎﺗﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺴﻴﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻣﺔﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺇﺩﺍﺭﻱ‪.‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻭﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺴﺎﺉﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺛﻴﻖ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁﺑﺎﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ )‪ (2002‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺰﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔﺑﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ‬
‫"ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺪﻭﻕ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ" ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬

‫‪31‬‬
 ‫ﻟﻤﺎﺣﺪﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ‪،‬‬
‫‪.(2003‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻞﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻨﺎﻉﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺟﻴﺮﺳﺘﻮﻥ )‪" ،(2004‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻳﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺘﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮﺩ ﻏﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺏﺻﻨﻊ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ‪) « .‬ﺹ ‪ .(95-94‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﻧﺤﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺤﻦﻣﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺜﺎﻝ‪،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺣﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﻓﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻣﺤﻠﻴﺎً‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪.‬‬

‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻬﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺗﻪ‪.‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻩ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍًﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺨﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻗﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻢﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻦ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻲ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﺤﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺔﻓﺎﻳﻤﺮ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﻴﻨﺞ )‪“ :(2011‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﺇﻥﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻘﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍ ًﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ‪«.‬‬
‫)ﺹ‪ .(263‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻟﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻭﻫﺪﻓﻪ ﻭﻏﺎﻳﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ "ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺭﻥﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻬﻞ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﻐﺮﺍﺕ ﺇﻥ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ‪.‬‬

‫‪32‬‬
 ‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﺨﺘﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺘﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻻﻣﻔﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﻓﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺮ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻪ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪2.2‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻦﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪5‬ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ (1:‬ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﺏ"ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ«;‪ (2‬ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ«;ﻭ ‪ (3‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫"ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻬﺠﻴﻦ" ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪.‬‬

‫‪5‬ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺧﻴﺎﺭﺍ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺟﺪﺍً ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ )ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ(‪ ،‬ﺭﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔﻓﻲ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺠﺎﻫﻠﻨﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪33‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪ :1-2‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺣﻜﻢﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻞ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺏ‬ ‫ﻭﺟﻬﺔﻧﻈﺮ‬

‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬ ‫ﻝ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻴﻮ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﻮ‬
‫• ﻧﺠﺎﺡﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬ ‫• ﻣﻦﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ‬ ‫• ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫• ﻓﺸﻞﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬ ‫• ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ‬
‫• ﻓﺠﻮﺓﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬ ‫• ﺗﻮﻟﻴﻒ‬ ‫• ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫==== ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‪.‬‬

‫• ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻣﻦﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ‬ ‫• ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫• ﻋﺪﻡﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫• ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫• ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ‪ /‬ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎء‬

‫• ﻧﺠﺎﺡﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬ ‫• ﻭﻓﺎء‬ ‫• ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬

‫• ﻓﺸﻞﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬ ‫• ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫• ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻛﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻭﺳﻴﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬ ‫• ﺗﻮﺍﺯﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ‬

‫ﻳﻌﺮﺽﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 1-2‬ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎً ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻤﻪ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻘﺪﻣﺔﺃﺩﻧﺎﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻢﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ‬

‫‪2.2.1‬ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ‬

‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬

‫ﻋﺎﻣﺔ)‪Hassenteufel، 2008‬؛ ‪ .(Lascoumes and Le Galès، 2007‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻔﻖﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻢ‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺮﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺑﺮﻳﺴﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻓﻴﻠﺪﺍﻓﺴﻜﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺍﺉﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ )ﻫﺎﺳﻨﺘﻴﻮﻓﻴﻞ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2008‬ﺑﻴﻚ ﻭ ‪.(2006 ،6‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑﻣﻦ (‪ Hassenteufel )2008‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺨﺬﺓ‬

‫ﻭﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪.‬ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬

‫‪34‬‬
 ‫ﻳﺸﻴﺮﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﻜﻚ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫"ﻣﻔﺘﺮﺽ" ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻛﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻦﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺫﻭﻱ ﻗﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻔﻀﻴﻼﺕ ﻭﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺜﻴﺮ ‪ Hassenteufel‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻟﻴﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻔﻴﺪﻣﻮﻇﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ‪“ :‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﻼﻟﻴﺔﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﺉﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﻴﺰ )ﻛﺬﺍ( ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻃﺎﻋﺔ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻠﺴﻞ ﺍﻟﻬﺮﻣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ‪) « .‬ﺹ ‪(87‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟـ‬

‫ﻧﻬﺠﻴﻦ‪:‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ«ﻭ "ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ"‪،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﺩﻗﺔﺍﻻﺳﻢ ﻭﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞ"ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ«ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ‬

‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ )ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(43‬ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻴﺮﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﺎﺭﺳﻮﻧﺰ )‪ ،(1995‬ﻭﺑﻮﻟﺰﻝ ﻭﺗﺮﻳﺐ )‪ (2007‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ"ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺪﻭﻕ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻠﻮﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺳﺒﺒﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺭﺻﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ )‪ (2010‬ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻳﺪ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻥﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺑﻔﻬﻢ ﺟﻴﺪ ﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ‪" ،‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻫﻮ ]‪ [...‬ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬

‫ﺍﺳﻤﺢﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻳﻔﺎء‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻳﻔﺎء )ﺍﻟﺠﺰﺉﻲ ﺟﺪﺍً(‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ‪) «.‬ﻫﺎﺳﻴﻨﺘﻮﻓﻮﻝ‪ ،2008 ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(84‬ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺿﻌﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺮﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﻨﺢ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎ ﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﻠﻮﻛﻬﻢ ﻭ‬

‫‪35‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺅﻫﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺪﻋﻤﻮﻥ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻء ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‬

‫ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﺤﺪﺩ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻣﺎﻧﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ )ﺑﻼﻛﻠﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(1987 ،.‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻻﺗﺒﺎﻉﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ "ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ" ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻭﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﻮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻭﻓﻘﺎﻟﺒﻠﻴﻜﻠﻲ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺉﻪ )‪ ،(1987‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻋﺘﺪﺍﻻ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻤﺜﻠﻬﺎﻫﻮﻝ ﺁﻧﺪ ﻟﻮﻛﺲ )‪ .(1978‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺩﻱﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺟﺰﺉﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻗﺒﻮﻻ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺁﺣﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻋﺠﺰﺍ‬
‫ﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻔﺘﺮﺿﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﻪﺇﺫﺍ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺧﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻦ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻂ ﻟﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ‪.‬‬

‫)ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪ .(2010 ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓﻧﻈﺮﺍ ﻟﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﺘﺒﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺵ ﻭﺗﺠﻠﺐ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑﻭﺍﻟﻔﻮﺍﺉﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ )ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪ ،2010 ،‬ﺹ‪ .(266 .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺘﺮﺽﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺳﻮﻥ )‪ (2003‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻋﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻛﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺸﺎﺭﻙﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ؛ ﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪36‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺸﺎﺷﺔﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ"ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ«ﺃﺑﺮﺯﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )‪ ،(Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻜﺲﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ "ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ«ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ "ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫]…[ ﻛﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﻼء ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ")ﺹ ‪ .(84‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍء‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﺉﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﺿﻪ )‪.(Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007‬‬

‫ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ "ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ«ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﻬﺠﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬

‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑﺑﺎﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﻮ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ )‪Lascoumes‬‬
‫ﻭ‪ ،(Le Galès, 2007‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺗﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻴﻼء‬
‫ﻣﻦﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢﺗﻌﺒﺉﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻣﻮﻥ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﺔ)ﺗﺸﺎﻣﺒﺮﺯ ﻭﻧﻮﺭﺗﻮﻥ‪ .(2016 ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻻ ﻧﻘﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ‪.‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ‪-‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﻴﻦﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ« )ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﻟﻴﺒﺴﻜﻲ‪ (1980 ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺇﻟﻤﻮﺭ )‪.(1979‬‬
‫"ﺭﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﺍﺉﻂ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍء«ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻳﻦ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻨُﻈﺮﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﻥ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻫﻤﺎ‪ (1 :‬ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲﻏﺎﻣﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺻﺮﻳﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ؛ ﻭ‪ (2‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺃ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﻭﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺗﻬﺎ‬

‫‪37‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﺉﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍً ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ)ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪ .(2010 ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ )‪ (2010‬ﺣﺪﻳﻦ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ‬
‫"ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ"‪.‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﻴﻦ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻋﺎﻗﺔ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺻﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﺮﻣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻻﻓﺈﻧﻬﻢ ﺳﻴﻮﺍﺟﻬﻮﻥ ﻋﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥﺍﻟﻨﺸﻄﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺎً ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﺏ"ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ«ﻭﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻭ‬

‫ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﺑﺈﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻜﻴﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥﻛﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢﻛﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﺤﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻋﻤﻴﻦﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺃﺣﺮﺍﺭﺍ ًﻓﻲ ﺟﻠﺒﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕﻟﺘﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡﺑﻼﻛﻠﻲ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (1987‬ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻄﺮﻓﺎً ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﻴﺮﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺃﻣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ ﻝ‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺰﻳﻴﻦ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺨﺘﺒﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺫﻭ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ (‪ Hassenteufel )2008‬ﻳﺜﻴﺮ ﺍﺛﻨﻴﻦ‬

‫ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻳﻘﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻣﻨُﻔﺬّ‪.‬ﻭﻳﺨﻠﺺ ﻫﺎﺳﻴﻨﺘﻮﻓﻴﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ “ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻻ ﻧﺸﺪﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺟﺢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻼً‬
‫ﻋﺎﺭﺿﺖ‪،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )ﻟﻴﻦ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ،(1987‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﻴﻒ ﻣﻤﻜﻨﺎً )ﺳﺎﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮ‪ ،2008) ”(1986 ،‬ﺹ ‪(101‬‬

‫‪38‬‬
 ‫ﺧﻠﻖﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺟﺪﻻ ًﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ )‪(Sabatier, 1986; Hogwood and Gunn, 1984‬‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺠﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﻓﻘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻻﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ )ﺑﻴﻚ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪ .(2006 ،6‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﻡ ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ )‪ (2002‬ﻭﺑﻮﻟﺰﻝ ﻭﺗﺮﻳﺐ )‪ (2007‬ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﻫﻤﺎﺕﻭﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ )ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ‬
‫)‪ (2002‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻬﺠﻴﻨﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺑﻮﻟﺰﻝ ﻭﺗﺮﻳﺐ )‪ .(2007‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻬﺆﻻء ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﺠﻴﻨﺔﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﻁﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ«ﻭ "ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ«ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪.‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻲ ﻣﻨﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺤﻆ ﺑﺎﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻣﻘﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺉﺔ)ﺑﺎﻛﺮ‪ .(2002 ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ‪:‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪,‬‬
‫ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺉﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺎﻟﺞﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺪﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﺹ ﻟﻸﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞﻭﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‪) «.‬ﺑﺎﻛﺮ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺹ‪ .(5 .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﺒﺎﻛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻧﻮﻋﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ‪ (1 :‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻟﻴﺘﺄﻗﻠﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻠﻲ؛ﻭ‪ (2‬ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎً‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ‪/‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻏﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺤﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ)ﺑﺎﻛﺮ‪2002 ،‬؛ ﺑﻴﺮﻣﺎﻥ‪1981 ،‬؛ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﻭ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;2004 ,.‬ﺗﺸﻦ‪2005 ،‬؛ ﺩﻭﺭﻻﻙ ﻭﺩﻭﺑﺮﻱ؛‬
‫‪ ;2008‬ﺩﻭﺳﻨﺒﺮﻱ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪(2003 ،.‬‬

‫‪39‬‬
 ‫‪2.2.2‬ﻓﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﺸﻞ‬

‫ﻭﻳﺆﺩﻱﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻠﻴﻦﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤﻴﻦ ﻹﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‪ .‬ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻌﺮﺽﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰﺑﻴﻦ ﻓﺸﻞ ﻭﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﻋﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﻥ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪" ،(2013‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺸﻞﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﻤﻢ )‪program‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻐﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﻤﻢ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﻮﺓ )ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺸﻞ(‪) «.‬ﺹ‪(344 .‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭﺃﻥ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ )ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ( ﻳﺜﻴﺮ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ )‪ Bovens‬ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;2001 ,.‬ﺑﻮﻓﻴﻨﺰ ﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﺭﺕ‪2016 ،‬؛ ﻛﻴﺮ‪1976 ،‬؛ ﻻﺳﻜﻮﻣﻴﺲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺠﺎﻟﻴﺲ‪2008،‬؛ ‪ (McConnell, 2010a, 2010b, 2014, 2015‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﺫﻭ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ )ﺑﺎﺗﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2013 ،.‬ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻏﻨﻴﺔﺟﺪﺍً )ﻫﺎﻭﻟﻴﺖ‪ .(2012 ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ )ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2010‬ﻣﺎﺗﻼﻧﺪ‪(1995 ،‬؛ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻔﻌﻴﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ‬
‫ﻭﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎًﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﺑﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ )ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺖ ﻭﻓﺪﺝ‪1981 ،‬؛ ﺭﻳﺒﻠﻲ ﻭﻓﺮﺍﻧﻜﻠﻴﻦ‪ .(1982 ،‬ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻂﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﺈﻧﺠﺎﺯﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ)ﻛﻴﻜﺮﺕ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،1997 ،.‬ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻮﺏ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺹ‪.(78 .‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ )‪2010‬ﺃ( ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎً ﻳﺠﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‬

‫ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻟﻲ)ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻛﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ( ﻭﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺉﻲ )ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ(‪ .‬ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ‪" ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥﻧﺎﺟﺤﺎً ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﻘﻖ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﻌﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺠﺬﺑﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻷﻱ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﺩﻋﻢ ﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻴﺎً‪) « .‬ﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ‪ 2010 ،‬ﺃ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .(351‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ "]…[ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺁﺓ‪ :‬ﺗﻔﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻔﺸﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺤﻘﻖﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﻌﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪﺍً‬

‫‪40‬‬
 ‫ﻳﻜﺎﺩﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﻭﻣﺎ‪ .[…] .‬ﺗﺤﺪﺙ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻬﺰﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻤﻮﺡﻟﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻌﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪) «.‬ﺹ‪ .(357-356 .‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬

‫ﻳﻌﺮﺽﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ 2-2‬ﻣﻠﺨﺼﺎً ﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬

‫ﻓﺸﻞﻭﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻣﻦﺣﻴﺚ ﻓﺸﻞ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﺑﻮﻓﻴﻨﺰ‪،‬ﻫﺎﺭﺕ ﻭ‬ ‫ﻻﺳﻜﻮﻣﻴﺲﻭ ﻟﻮ‬

‫ﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ)‪2010‬ﺃ‪،‬ﺏ(‬ ‫ﻫﻮﻟﻴﺖ)‪(2012‬‬ ‫ﻛﻴﺮ)‪(1976‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﺘﺮﺯ)‪(2001‬‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻟﻴﺲ)‪(2007‬‬

‫ﻧﺠﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻧﺠﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻓﺸﻞﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﺸﻞﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﻋﺪﻡﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻣﺠﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻞﻓﻨﻲ‬

‫ﻧﺠﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻓﺸﻞﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺧﺴﺎﺭﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﻡﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬ ‫ﻣﻔﻴﺪﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﻡﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ‪ :2-2‬ﻧﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﻋﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﺑﻌُﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺳﻤﺔﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪" :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ ﺟﺰﺉﻴﺎً ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻢﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻩ‪) « .‬ﺑﺎﺗﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2013 ،.‬ﺹ‪(345 .‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺸﻴﺮﻛﻴﺮ )‪ (1976‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ (1 :‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﻭ‪ (2‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫‪41‬‬
 ‫ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‪ .‬ﻫﻮﺟﻮﻭﺩ ﻭﺟﺎﻥ‬
‫)‪ ،1984‬ﺹ ‪ (197‬ﻳﻌﺰﻭ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ (1 :‬ﺿﻌﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ)ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮﺩ(؛ ‪ (3‬ﺳﻴﺉﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ)ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻣﺮﻏﻮﺑﺔ( ﻭ‪ (3‬ﺳﻮء ﺍﻟﺤﻆ )ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺠﺢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﺻﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﻋﻠﻴﻪ(‪ .‬ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻻﺳﻜﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺟﺎﻟﻴﺲ )‪ (2007‬ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻴﺒﺎً‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻤﻮﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻻﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺳﻲء‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻬﻮﻟﻴﺖ )‪ ،(2012‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ )ﻭﺿﻊ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ؛ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻭﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ)ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ( ؛ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ )‪2010‬ﺃ‪،‬ﺏ( ﻋﻦ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ “]ﻫﻢَ[‬

‫ﻓﻬﻢﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺉﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺨﺬ ﺧﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡﻋﺎﻡ‪) « .‬ﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ‪ 2010 ،‬ﺃ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(349‬ﻳﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﻮﻓﻴﻨﺰ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (2001‬ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺠﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪"،‬ﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﻟﻬﺎ؟‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻨﺠﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺣﺴﺎﺳﺔ )ﻻﺳﻮﻳﻞ‪1971 ،‬؛ ﻟﻴﻨﺪﺑﻠﻮﻡ‪،‬‬
‫‪(1990‬؟« )ﺑﻮﻓﻴﻨﺰ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2001 ،.‬ﺹ‪(20 .‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻤﺎﺳﺒﻖ ﻳﺘﺒﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭﺗﻔﻌﻴﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺃﻭ‬

‫ﻳﻈﻞﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎﻓﻬﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺣﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ )ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻣﺒﻮ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(1984 ،.‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺓﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪،[...]" ،‬ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪﺍً ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺤﺪﺩ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ‬
‫ﺗﻬﺪﻑﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺔ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺠﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﺑﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ‪«.‬‬
‫)ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ‪ ،2010 ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(39‬ﻭﺩﻋﻤﺎً ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﻴﺮﻛﻼﻧﺪ )‪ (2010‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺪﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎً ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮﺭ)ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ( ﻳﺠﻠﺐ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ )ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻣﺒﻮ ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻝ‪.(1984 ،.‬‬

‫‪42‬‬
 ‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻄﺮﺡﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺔﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻭﺿﺤﻬﺎ ﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ )‪2010‬ﺃ(‪ ،[…]“ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺰﺑﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺄﻃﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﺎﺟﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺄﻃﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﺎﺟﺤﺔ‬

‫ﻏﻴﺮﻧﺎﺟﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ )ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ‪2002‬؛ ﻓﻴﺸﺮ ‪) «.(2003‬ﺹ‪" .(346 .‬ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺷﻴﺎءﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ )‪) «.(Bovens and 't Hart، 1996‬ﺑﻮﻓﻴﻨﺰ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2001 ،.‬ﺹ‪ .(20 .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﻟﻴﺴﺎ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً ﻣﻄﻠﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺫﻟﻚ‬

‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥﺟﺰﺉﻴﺔ )‪ .(Howlett، 2012‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﺎﻛﻮﻧﻴﻞ )‪2010‬ﺃ( ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻠﺔ‪ (1:‬ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ؛ ‪ (2‬ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺸﻞﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪VS‬؛ ‪ (3‬ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ )ﺹ‪.(359-357‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻭﺗﻔﻌﻴﻠﻬﺎ‬

‫ﻗﻴﺎﺳﺎﺗﻬﺎﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻓﺈﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺸﻞ ﺳﺘﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ‪.‬‬

‫‪2.3‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻟﻘﺎء ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺍﺕ‬

‫ﺑﻴﻦﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﺓ‪ .‬ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻐﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻬﻤﻬﻢ‪.‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻟﻌﺪﺓ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻢﺳﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺃ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻥﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻴﺰﺓ ﻻﺳﺘﻐﻼﻟﻪ )ﻳﺎﻧﻮ‪ .(2000 ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪،‬‬

‫‪43‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻳﻬﺘﻢﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻠﻐﺖ‪.‬ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﻧﺠﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﺑﺮﺯﻫﺎ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻴﻼء‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺕﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ )‪ (Lascoumes and LeGalès, 2007‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻮﻇﻔﻲﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ« )ﻟﻴﺒﺴﻜﻲ‪.(1980 ،‬‬

‫ﺃﺣﺪﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﻮﻁ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ)ﻟﻴﺒﺴﻜﻲ‪1980 ،‬؛ ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‪1998 ،‬؛ ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‪2000 ،‬؛ ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‪2004 ،‬؛ ﺳﺎﺗﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪,.‬‬
‫‪ .(2018‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺇﻥﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻫﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ‬
‫)ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‪2000 ،‬؛ ﻳﺎﻧﻮ‪ .(1996 ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻠﻘﺎﻫﺎ ﻫﺆﻻء‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﻦﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺘﺮﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﻢ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻤﺘﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎ ًﻟـ»ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ«‬

‫ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ )ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻄﺖﻭﻓﻜﺮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻴﺒﺴﻜﻲ )‪" :(1980‬ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺴﻘﺔﻣﻊ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ ﺑﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺑﻤﺎﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻔﻀﻴﻼﺗﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﻂ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺯﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻋﻮﻣﺔﺑﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ‪) « .‬ﺹ‪ .(19‬ﻭﺑﺤﺴﺐ ﻟﻴﺒﺴﻜﻲ )‪ ،(1980‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔﺗﺄﺗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺃﻥﻣﻮﻇﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﺍء‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎﻳﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎﺉﻬﻢ ﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺳﺎﺉﻠﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻮﻁﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫)ﻟﻴﺒﺴﻜﻲ‪.(1980 ،‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﻭﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‬

‫‪44‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﻜﻞ ﺣﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺨﻠﻖﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺨﻄﻄﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﻭﺃﻃﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺅﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ )‪(Smircich and Morgan, 1982‬؛ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ )ﺇﻧﺠﻞ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪;2011 ,.‬‬
‫ﺳﺘﻴﻨﺴﺎﻛﺮﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪.(2008 ،.‬‬

‫ﻭﻓﻘﺎﻟﺪﻳﺮﻓﻴﻦ )‪ ،1995‬ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﺮﻱ‪" ،(2000 ،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻅ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯﺍً ﺻﺮﻳﺤﺎً ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻨُﻈﺮِّﺍً ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺎً‬
‫ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻙﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‪) « .‬ﺹ‪ .(9‬ﻟﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺄﺗﻲﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺑﺘﻜﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪2.3.1‬ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻴﺪ‬

‫ﻧﻘﻞﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬

‫ﻟﻨﺒﺪﺃﺑﺎﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻲ‪6‬ﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪" :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ" ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰﻭ"ﺍﻟﺼﻨﻊ" ﻫﻮ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻭﺑﻨﺎء ﺷﻲء ﻣﺎ‬
‫)ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﺮﻱ‪ .(2000 ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻳﻚ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺍﺩﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (2005‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﻛﺎﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ‪ .‬ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺫﻟﻚ‬

‫‪6‬ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻧﺸﺄ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻪﺇﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻻﺣﻘﺎً ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﺪﻳﺮﻓﻴﻦ )‬
‫‪ ،(1983‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻳﻠﻬﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻭﺭﺍﺉﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ .‬ﻫﺆﻻء ﻫﻢ ﺑﻴﻴﺮ ﺑﻮﺭﺩﻳﻮ )‪،(2002-1930‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻴﺸﻴﻞﻓﻮﻛﻮ )‪ ،(1984-1926‬ﻭﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﻏﺎﺩﺍﻣﻴﺮ )‪ ،(2002-1900‬ﻭﻳﻮﺭﻏﻦ ﻫﺎﺑﺮﻣﺎﺱ )‪ .(1929‬ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺟﺮﻭﺱ )‪ (2010‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺩﻳﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻬﻢ ﺑﻬﻴﻐﻞ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﺰءﺍً ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻱ‪.‬‬

‫‪45‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔ)ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﺮ‪ .(2000 ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪" ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ"ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺄﻃﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻸﻓﺮﺍﺩ” )ﺇﻳﻔﺎﻧﺰ‪ ،2007 ،‬ﺹ ‪." ..(161‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻘﻲﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺮﺑﻂﻭﻳﻚ )‪ (1995‬ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪،‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻭﺍﻹﺳﻨﺎﺩ‪ .7‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺴﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﻭﻳﻚ )‪ (1995‬ﺳﺒﻊ ﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎﻓﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻋﻬﺎ‪:‬‬

‫ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺗﺮﺗﻜﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ؛ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺺﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺩ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻩ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﺪﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﺉﺘﻪ ﻭﻳﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻊﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﺪﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻖﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﺗﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺄﺛﺮ ﺭﺟﻌﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻬﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻳﻌﻜﺲﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻳﺄﺗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺛﻢﺃﻋﻄﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﻋﻄﺎء ﻭﺯﻥ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﺎﺯ‪.‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻮﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻄﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﻟﻴﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺑﺄﺛﺮﺭﺟﻌﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺗﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﻭﻛﻼء ﻧﺸﻄﻴﻦ‬ ‫•‬

‫ﻓﻲﺑﻨﺎء ﺑﻴﺉﺎﺗﻬﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪7‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻭﻳﺤﻜﻤﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ‪.‬‬

‫‪46‬‬
 ‫ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻣﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ‪.‬ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺉﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺻﻨﻊﺍﻟﺤﺲ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ‬ ‫•‬

‫ﻭﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐﺧﻠﻘﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺍ ﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻌﺮﺑﺎﻟﺮﺍﺣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺮﻛﺰﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺫﺍﻙ‬ ‫•‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﺍﺕﻣﺘﺤﻴﺰﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ‪ .‬ﻳﺨﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺫﺍﺗﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﺉﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻩ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺮﻛﺰﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻮﻥ‬ ‫•‬

‫ﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪﺱ‪،‬ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﺸﻴﻄﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺑﻴﺉﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﺒﻊ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩﻭﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺿﻰ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻞ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻹﻋﻄﺎء ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﺤﺪﺙ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺇﻟﺦ‪).‬ﺃﻧﻜﻴﺮﺳﺘﺠﻴﺮﻥ‪ .(2012 ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﺴﺒﻴﻼﻥ )‪ ،(2004‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﻓﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻔﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺏﻭﻣﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﻭﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺲ )ﺹ‪ ،(76‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻜﻞﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻷﻃﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮﺍﻟﻔﻬﺮﺱ ﻭﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﻌﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺍﻟﻤﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻷﻃﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺟﻊﺧﺎﺹ ﻟﺼﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒﻣﻦ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻵﺧﺮ ) ﻓﻼﺭ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2008 ،.‬ﺹ‪.(232 .‬‬

‫ﺗﻨﺸﻂﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬

‫ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕﻭﺗﻮﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ‬

‫‪47‬‬
 ‫ﻳﺼﻞﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺉﺺﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻢﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮﻫﺎ )‪ .(Ankerstjerne, 2012‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺨﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺧﻠﻘﺖ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍً ﻭﻓﻬﻤﺎً ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍً‬
‫)ﺃﻧﻜﻴﺮﺳﺘﺠﻴﺮﻥ‪2012 ،‬؛ ﻭﻳﻚ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪.(2005 ،.‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﻤﺎﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺗﻄﻮﺭﻳﺔ )ﻭﻳﻚ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪":(2005 ،.‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ )ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ( ﻭﺑﻴﺉﺎﺗﻬﺎ )ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ( ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ )ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ( ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ )ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ(‪) «.‬ﻭﻳﻚ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪,.‬‬
‫‪،2005‬ﺹ‪ .(414 .‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﻳﻤﺜﻞ«ﻳﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﻮﻟﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻟﻬﻢ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ )‪ Smircich‬ﻭ‪،Stubbart‬‬
‫‪1985‬ﺍﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﺎﻣﻠﺘﻮﻥ‪ .(2006 ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ"ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ )ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺔ( ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ‪)8‬ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺢ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً ﻣﻜﺜﻔﺔ ﺟﺪﺍً‬
‫ﻣﺪﻯﺍﺣﺘﻮﺍء ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺗﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﺩ ﺟﻴﻮﻧﺞ ﻭﺑﺮﻭﻳﺮ )‪ (2008‬ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻝﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ‪ (1:‬ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺔ‪" :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺩﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻔﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﺈﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺮﻭﺝ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻮﺍﺟﻬﻮﻧﻬﺎ‪) «.‬ﺹ‪(229 .‬؛ ‪ (2‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ‪:‬‬
‫"ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﻮﻥ ﺑﻔﻬﻢ "ﺃﻧﻤﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ" ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫)ﻣﻮﺭﺍﻥ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﺹ ‪ (232‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻼﺣﻈﻮﻧﻬﺎ‪) «.‬ﺹ‪(230 .‬؛ ‪ (3‬ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ :‬ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮﺑﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ؛ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺑﻖ)ﺹ ‪ .(232-231‬ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺲ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢﺳﺒﺐ ﺗﺼﺮﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ‬

‫‪"8‬ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺢ«ﺗﺘُﺮﺟﻢ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺎً ﺇﻟﻰ "ﺃﻗﻮﺍﺱ" ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‪ .‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻋﺰﻟﻬﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎﺉﻬﻢ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪48‬‬
 ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ )ﺑﻴﻚ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪ .(2006 ،6‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻭﻳﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻧﻘﻄﺎﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫"ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ؟«ﻭ "ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻓﻌﻞ؟« )ﺹ‪(410 .‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﻤﺎﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ‬

‫ﺩﻋﻮﻧﺎﻧﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪sensinging‬ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺗﺪﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻫﺮﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﻓﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻴﺘﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﻟﻮﺭﺍﻧﺲ )‪ ،(2007‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺛﺮﻭﻥﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﺎء‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪sensinging،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﻋﻠﻰﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻭﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ )ﺳﺘﻨﺴﺎﻛﺮ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪,2008 ,.‬‬
‫ﺹ‪ .(166.‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺇﻋﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻳﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻳﺄﺗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﻘﻨﻌﺔ )ﻣﻴﺘﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﻟﻮﺭﺍﻧﺲ‪،‬‬
‫‪.(2007‬‬

‫ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶﺟﻮﻳﺎ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (1994‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﻪ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔﺑﻴﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‪ .‬ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭ‬
‫ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﻔﻬﻢ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ )ﺟﻴﻮﻳﺎ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;1994 ,.‬ﺟﻮﻳﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺘﻴﺒﻴﺪﻱ‪ .(1991،‬ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﻓﻬﻤﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎءﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻹﺭﺷﺎﺩﻫﻢ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻀﻠﻪ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ )‪ .(Gioia and Chittipeddi، 1991‬ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﺇﻥﺇﻋﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻳﺪﻭﺭ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻧﻘﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ )ﺃﻧﻜﺮﺳﺘﺠﻴﺮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .(2012‬ﻭﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻠﻘﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔ)ﺃﻧﻜﺮﺳﺘﺠﻴﺮﻥ‪.(2012 ،‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﻃﻮﻋﺎً ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻝﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺎﻭﺭﻳﻪ‪ .‬ﺛﻢ ﻳﻨﺨﺮﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ ،sensinging‬ﻣﻌﺮﻑ ﻙ "]ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻔﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ‪« .‬‬

‫‪49‬‬
 ‫)ﺟﻮﻳﺎ ﻭﺗﺸﻴﺘﻴﺒﻴﺪﻱ‪ ،1991 ،‬ﺹ ‪(442‬‬

‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭ‬

‫ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝﺍﻥ‪sensinging‬ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻮﻟﻬﻢ ﺳﻮﺍء ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ)ﺑﺎﺭﺗﻮﻧﻴﻚ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;1999 ,.‬ﻛﻮﺭﻟﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﻳﺎ‪2004 ،‬؛ ﺟﻮﻳﺎ ﻭﺗﺸﻴﺘﻴﺒﻴﺪﻱ‪،(1991 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﻴﻦ )ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ( )ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻏﻮﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﻧﺴﻮﻥ‪2004 ،‬؛ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻏﻮﻥ‪2003 ،‬؛‬
‫ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻠﻲ‪ ،(1990،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ )ﻣﻴﺘﻠﻴﺲ‪ .(2005 ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻓﻘﻴﺔ )ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻏﻮﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﻧﺴﻮﻥ‪،(2004 ،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻬﺎﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ( )ﻣﻴﺘﻠﻴﺲ‪.(2005 ،‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﺉﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ‪:‬ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺺ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،(Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991.‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻛﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ‬
‫)ﺭﻭﻟﻮ‪ ،(2005 ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﻹﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻴﺔ )ﻣﻴﺘﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺳﻮﻧﻴﻨﺸﻴﻦ‪،‬‬
‫‪.(2010‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﻳﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺫﻭﻣﻌﻨﻰﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﻄﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻬﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﺃﻡ ﻻ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎﻋﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﻗﺒﻮﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺼﺪﺍﻗﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺤﻰ‪،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺜﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﻄﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻛﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺗﻞﺍﻟﻤﻔﻀﻞ )ﻭﻳﻚ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2005 ،.‬ﺹ‪.(418 .‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻤﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬

‫ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ)ﺧﻄﻮﻁ‪2007 ،‬؛ ﻣﻴﺘﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺳﻮﻧﻴﻨﺸﻴﻦ‪ .(2010 ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ )ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺩﺭﺓ(‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻈُﻬﺮ ﺍﻷﻣﻞ )‪ (2010‬ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﻘﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺳﻤﺢﻟﻠﻤﺪﻳﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻﺣﻈﻬﻢ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫‪sensinging‬ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺻﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪.‬‬

‫‪50‬‬
 ‫ﺃﺛﻨﺎءﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎً ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺎً‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺁﺓﺃﻭ ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻴﺔ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﻻ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺸﻂ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻮﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻫﺪﺟﺬﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺗﻐﺬﻳﺔ ﺭﺍﺟﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺎﺷﻂ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻠﺘﺰﻣﺔﺑﺤﺰﻡ ﺑﺮﻏﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻭﺭ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺠﺪﺭ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻝ‪com.sensemaker‬ﻳﻈﻞ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺎً ﻭﺧﺎﺿﻌﺎً ﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﻜﺘﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ‪.‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺭﺍﺳﺨﺔ ﻭﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ )ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔﻭﻭﻃﻨﻴﺔ( ﻭﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ )‪ .(Dervin, 2003‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻖ ﻛﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻛﻜﺎﺉﻦ‪.‬ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻝ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺲ ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪(2009‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺉﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ‪.‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺺ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺩﻭﺭ‬
‫"ﺭﺅﺳﺎء ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ"‪،‬ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺻﻨﻊﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ )ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2009 ،.‬ﺹ‪.(233-234 .‬‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ"ﺭﺅﺳﺎء ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ«ﻟﻪ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺣﺎﺳﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻞ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ‬

‫ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎء ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻭﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺹﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺲ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺲﻳﻜﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ )ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺲ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2009 ،.‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﺩﻭﺭﺍً ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺎً ﻛﺼﺎﻧﻊ ﻟﻠﺤﻮﺍﺱ ﻭﻣﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﻮﺍﺱ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ‬

‫‪51‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻟﻠﺠﻬﺎﺕﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻻﻣﻮﺙ ﻭﻻﻧﺠﻠﻲ‪.(2001 ،‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡﺟﻮﻳﺎ ﻭﺗﺸﻴﺘﻴﺒﻴﺪﻱ )‪ (1991‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬

‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺪﺃﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﻲ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﺮﻑّ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻝﻋﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻭﺧﻄﻄﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﺮﺍﻑﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﻜﻴﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﻂ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻛﺰﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺑﺪء ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳﺨﻠﻖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻮﻥ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎً ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢﻭﺍﻻﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺽ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔﻟﻠﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻬﺘﻢﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﺴﺆﺍﻟﻴﻦ‪ (1 :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ‬

‫ﻗﺎﻡﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻮﻥ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ؛ ﻭ‪ (2‬ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺉﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺛﺮﺕﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻟﺰﻡ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‪ .‬ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺎﻑ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻴﺴﺮﻱﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻞﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡﺃﻧﻜﻴﺮﺳﺘﺠﻴﺮﻧﻲ )‪ (2012‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬

‫ﺃﻋﻀﺎءﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﻋﻴﺔﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻤﺎﺭﻛﻴﺔ)ﺗﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺅﻩ « (‪SCY‬‬
‫ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱﺑﺎﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﻭﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ‪،‬ﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﺎﻣﻴﻠﺘﻮﻥ )‪ (2006‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻝ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻝ"ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻭ" ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺬﻭﻟﺔ‪sensinging‬ﻗﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺺﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺃﻥﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﻮﻥﻻ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء‬
‫ﻳﻌﻨﻲﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﺮﻓﺎﺕ ﻭﺧﻄﺐ ﻗﺎﺩﺗﻬﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪52‬‬
 ‫‪2.3.2‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ‬

‫ﺇﻥﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬

‫ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻃﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﺉﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻲ )ﻭﺍﻳﻠﻲ‪ ،(1988 ،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ‪com.sensemaker.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﻦ )ﻫﻴﺮﻧﺰ‪ .(2008 ،‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻊ‪ intrasubjective‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺃ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ)‪.(Allard-Poesi، 2005‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﻭﺍﻳﻠﻲ )‪ (1988‬ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ؛‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺼﺒﺢﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻨﺬﺍﺗﻲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻨﺬﺍﺗﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ‪،‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺩﻣﺠﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﺩﺛﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚﻧﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ "ﻧﺤﻦ" ﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ "ﺃﻧﺎ"‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻥﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻞ "ﻧﺤﻦ" ﺃﻭ "ﻧﺤﻦ" ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻧﻴﺎﻭﺳﻜﺎ‪-‬ﺟﻮﺭﺟﻴﺲ‪ .(1992 ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺗﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻳﺘﺴﻢ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ "ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻲ‪) « .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺶ ﻭﺃﻭﻧﺠﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،1991 ،‬ﺹ ‪ .(60‬ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﻛﺰﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺉﺔﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﻟﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﺼﻒ ﻭﺍﻳﻠﻲ )‪ (1988‬ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﻦ‬
‫" ‪:‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ‪intersubjectivity‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﻴﻒ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻻﺣﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍﺗﺤﺪﺛﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ )ﺃﻭ "ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻠﻲ"(‪.‬‬
‫"ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻼﺕ"( ﻳﺘﻢ ﺩﻣﺠﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﻭﺭﻛﻬﺎﻳﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪« .‬‬

‫‪53‬‬
 ‫)ﺹ‪ .(258‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺗﻴﻦ )ﺑﻴﺮﻏﺮ ﻭﻟﻮﻛﻤﺎﻥ‪(1986) [1967] ،‬؛‬
‫ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻧﻴﺎﻭﺳﻜﺎ‪-‬ﺟﻮﺭﺟﻴﺲ‪1992 ،‬؛ ﻭﻳﻚ‪ ،(1995 ،‬ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻳﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫ﻟﺤﻈﺎﺕﻭﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻔﺬﻭﻥ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺘﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺒﺆ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﺮﺿﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻀﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻔﺮ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺴﻤﺢﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻝ‬

‫ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ )ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎﺕﻭﺍﻷﻃﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﺷﺎﺉﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‪ (9‬ﻣﺘﻰ‬
‫ﺇﻥﻏﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻨﺨﻔﺾ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻋﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺷﻌﺮﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫)ﺃﻻﺭﺩ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪ .(2003 ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻮﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻝ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺻﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ‪ .‬ﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺷﻒﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻂ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺮﺳﻼً‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺷﺮﺍً‪ :‬ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎً‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺨﺘﻔﻲ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﻤﻮﺽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊﺿﻌﻴﻒ )‪ .(Allard-Poesi، 2003‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﻗﻮﻳﺎً‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺨﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺫﺍﺗﻲ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺳﺔ‪.‬ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺰﻱ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻀﺎء‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔﺗﻮﺍﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻮﻟﻴﻒ ﺃﻃﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ )ﻭﻳﻚ‪.(1995 ،‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻘﺎﻟﻮﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﺘﻰ‬

‫‪9‬ﻭﺿﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﻣﺨﺰﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﻮﺭﻩ ﺷﻮﺗﺰ )‪ 1967‬ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪ (Jeong and Brower, 2008‬ﻭ(‪ .Berger and Luckman ]1967[ )1986‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪54‬‬
 ‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ‪ intersubjective‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪﺃﻋﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻳﺘﻘﺎﺳﻤﻮﻧﻬﺎ‪" ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ" ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺰﻭﺩﻫﻢ ﺑﻤﺨﺰﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ "ﺟﺎﻫﺰ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ"‪ .‬ﻫﺆﻻء‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﺉﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺒﺮﻳﺮﺃﻓﻌﺎﻟﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻢ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺣﻮﻟﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙﻫﺆﻻء ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺍﻟﺘﻨﺸﺉﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ "ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ"‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬

‫ﻋﺎﻡ‪،‬ﺑﻞ ﺫﺍﺗﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺠﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻬﺘﻢﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻥﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺅﻫﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰﺃﻥ ﻭﻳﻚ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﺍًﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﻭﻟﺒﻮﺭﺕ )‪-Allard‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪2003،‬؛ ﺗﺴﺎﺭﺍﻧﻴﺎﻭﺳﻜﺎ‪ .(2006 ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻣﻌﺎً ﻻ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻩ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪﺍﻷﺩﻧﻰ )ﻭﻳﻚ‪.(1995 ،‬‬

‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺗﺮﺗﻜﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ‪:‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺨﺮﻃﺎًﻓﻲ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻟﻤﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻷﻥ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻓﻲﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ‪:‬ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺨﺼﺺﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻷﺩﻭﺍﺭﻫﻢ ﻭﺧﺒﺮﺍﺗﻬﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ‪،‬ﻭﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺤﺎﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻫﻴﻜﻠﺔﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻟﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﺔ‪،‬ﻭﺃﺛﺮ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﻓﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﺠﻊ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺜﺒﻂ‬
‫ﺃﻥﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺫﺓ )‪.(Weick, 1995‬‬

‫‪55‬‬
56
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬

‫ﻧﺤﻦﻣﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺗﺤﺎﻭﻝﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ‬
‫‪-‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺳﻨﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﻛﻞﻭﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻷﻧﻬﺎ‬

‫ﺃﻧﻪﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺉﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﺑﺘﻌﺎﺩﺍً ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺆﻻء‬
‫ﻣﻼﻣﺢﻭﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺎﺗﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺎ ﻭﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺳﻨﻮﺿﺢﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲﺗﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺡ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.‬‬

‫‪3.1‬ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ‪ Howlett‬ﻭﺯﻣﻼﺅﻩ )‪ (2009‬ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪10‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ‬

‫ﻭﻫﻲﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺷﺎﻗﺔ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺗﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺘﻬﺎﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﻭﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﺎﺭﻳﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺉﺼﻬﺎ‬

‫‪10‬ﻳﻤﻴﺰ ﻫﻮﻟﻴﺖ ﻭﺭﺍﻣﻴﺶ ﻭﺑﻴﺮﻝ )‪ :(2009‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻤﻲ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺍﻹﺣﺼﺎﺉﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺃﻭﺳﻊ ﻭﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻟﻴﺮﻛﺰ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺑﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺗﻬﺎﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪57‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺈﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺣﻜﻢﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞﻟﻦ ﻳﺠﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ "ﻟﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩﺓﻭﻓﺸﻠﺖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺠﺤﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ"‪) .‬ﻫﺎﻭﻟﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،2009 ،.‬ﺹ‪ .(8 .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻳﺼﺪﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ )‪ .(McKenzie and Wharf, 2010‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻳﻐﻴﺮ ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﻧﺸﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺍﻟﺘﺨﻄﻴﻂ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ )‪.(McKenzie and Wharf, 2010‬‬

‫ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﺸﺒﻌﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ )ﻓﻼﺳﻮﺑﻮﻟﻮ‪،‬‬

‫‪ .(2005‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺷﻜﻠﺖﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻻ ًﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺉﻴﺔ)ﺩﻭﺑﻮﺍ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺳﻮ‪2005 ،‬؛ ﻓﻼﺳﻮﺑﻮﻟﻮ‪" .(2005 ،‬ﻛﻼﻫﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒﻟﻬﺎ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪) « .‬ﻓﻼﺳﻮﺑﻮﻟﻮ‪ ،2005 ،‬ﺹ ‪(3‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﺍﻵﻭﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ‬

‫)ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ،(2002 ،.‬ﺗﺤﺖ ﺃﺳﻤﺎء ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺃﺑﺮﺯﻫﺎ ""ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ"‪"،‬‬
‫"ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ"""ﺗﻌﻠﻢُّ"""ﺫﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ‪ "،‬ﻭ "ﻗﺮﺍءﺓ"" )ﺹ ‪ .(392‬ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻥﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻢﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻳﻦ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺎﻑ ٍﻛﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ .‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﻨﺠﺢ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺩﺍﺉﻤﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﻢ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺎﺏﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰ )ﻛﻮﺑﺮﻥ‪ ،2001 ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‬

‫‪58‬‬
 ‫ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ .(2002 ،.‬ﻳﺴﺘﻜﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻮﻧﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺎﺕﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺒﻜﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻭﻛﻼء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ)ﻛﻮﺑﻴﺮﻥ‪ ،2001 ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻝ‪ ;2002 ,.‬ﻫﻴﻞ‪1999 ،‬؛ ﻟﻴﻦ‪2000 ،‬؛ ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‪1998 ،‬؛‬

‫ﺳﺒﻴﻼﻥ‪2000،‬؛ ﻳﺎﻧﻮ‪.(1996 ،‬‬

‫ﻣﻦﺟﺎﻧﺒﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﻮﻟﺰﻝ ﻭﺗﺮﻳﺐ )‪ (2007‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺃ‬

‫ﺑﺪﻳﻞﺍﻷﺟﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻟﻤﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ )ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻩ(‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ .(2‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺑﺄﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻡﻛﻜﻞ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﻨﻄﻠﻖﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ]…[‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻡﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺉﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻨﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺪﻯﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﻴﺰﺓ…ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻓﺠﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﺑﻴﻦ ﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ "ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ" )‬
‫ﻳﺎﻧﻮ‪).(1996،‬ﺑﻮﻟﺰﻝ ﻭﺗﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،2007 ،‬ﺹ‪(100-99 .‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪﻃﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻳﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ‬

‫ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ‪.‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﺪﻳﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫)ﻫﺎﺗﺶ ﻭﻳﺎﻧﻮ‪ .(2003 ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻋﺰﻝ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﺍﻟﺘﻌﻤﻴﻤﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕﻹﻋﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ )ﺭﻭﺑﻦ ﻭﺑﺎﺑﻲ‪ .(2005 ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﺣﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﺱ‬

‫ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞﻭﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﺤﻦ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺡﺑﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ )ﻧﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ( ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬

‫‪59‬‬
 ‫)ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ(‪ .‬ﻧﺤﻦ ﻣﻬﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻲ‪،‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻄﻬﻢﺑﺎﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻳﺨﻠﻘﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﻳﺒﻨﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺸﺎءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪.‬‬

‫‪3.2‬ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬

‫ﻓﻲﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ‪11‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎﻑﺿﻮء ﺍﻷﺩﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻩ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞﻓﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪LPJ‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕﻋﻠﻰ ‪ LPJ‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ .2007‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎً‪،‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﻭﺳﺔ )ﺟﺒﺎﺭﻳﻦ‪ .(2009 ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻱﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺠﺪ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ‪ .3.1‬ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ )ﺟﺒﺎﺭﻳﻦ‪ (2009 ،‬ﻭﺗﻨﺒﺜﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ‪12‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﺤﻦ‬

‫‪11‬ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺒﻴﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺮﻣﺰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﺷﻼﻏﺮ )‪ (2007‬ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪“ :‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻓﺤﺼﻬﺎ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﻃﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺷﻲءﺑﺪءﺍً ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ )ﺃﻭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺓ( ﺇﻟﻰ ﺷﻲء ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ‪) «.‬ﺹ‪.(322 .‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻃﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪"12‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ" ﺑﻤﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺑﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻭﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻭﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺑﻬﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺒﻖﻭﻫﻮ "ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺒﺆ" ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻧﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻤﻬﺎ‪.‬ﺑﺤﺴﺐ ﺳﺒﺎﺗﻴﻴﻪ‬

‫‪60‬‬