Integrating Public & Private Universities in Iran

A Strategy for Scientific Advancement, Institutional Efficiency, and the Preservation of National Academic Heritage

Abstract

The structure of higher education is a major determinant of a country's scientific capacity, human capital development, and long-term intellectual independence. In Iran, the coexistence of public and private universities raises important questions concerning the distribution of financial resources, the utilisation of academic infrastructure, institutional efficiency, and the preservation of accumulated scholarly knowledge. Public universities, many of which possess long institutional histories, have developed substantial academic assets, including libraries, museums, historical archives, research collections, and established scholarly traditions. Nevertheless, financial constraints can limit their ability to maintain these assets, modernise their facilities, recruit qualified personnel, and compete effectively in an increasingly demanding international academic environment. Private universities, by contrast, may possess alternative financial capacities, facilities, and organisational arrangements, although their resources and academic strengths vary considerably.

This article examines the case for integrating public and private universities in Iran through institutional mergers, federations, shared services, and coordinated resource allocation. It argues that a carefully designed integration policy could reduce unnecessary duplication, improve the utilisation of academic infrastructure, expand research opportunities, strengthen the recruitment of students and employees, and establish a more coherent national strategy for higher education. It further proposes that the historical and documentary heritage of public universities should be treated as a strategic national asset rather than merely as an institutional responsibility. However, integration should not be understood as the indiscriminate absorption of all private universities into the public sector. Its effectiveness would depend on transparent governance, sustainable financing, academic autonomy, institutional diversity, and evidence-based implementation.

Keywords: Higher education in Iran; public universities; private universities; institutional integration; academic heritage; university libraries; research infrastructure; educational governance; resource allocation; human capital.

1. Introduction

Higher education is not simply a mechanism for delivering academic qualifications. It is a fundamental institution through which societies produce knowledge, preserve intellectual traditions, develop professional expertise, and cultivate the human resources required for economic, technological, and cultural advancement. The effectiveness of a national higher education system therefore depends not only on the quality of individual universities but also on the way these institutions are organised, financed, and connected to one another.

In Iran, the relationship between public and private universities deserves renewed consideration. The development of different institutional models has expanded opportunities for higher education, but the coexistence of these models also raises questions about the coordination of academic resources, the distribution of investment, and the extent to which institutional competition contributes to national scientific objectives.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identifies institutional collaboration, alliances, mergers, and the concentration of research capacity as policy instruments that governments can use to improve coordination, achieve economies of scale, and strengthen academic performance. At the same time, the OECD recognises that the outcomes of institutional consolidation depend on the circumstances in which it is implemented and cannot be assumed to be uniformly beneficial (OECD, 2020).

For Iran, the case for integration rests on a particular combination of considerations. First, established public universities hold accumulated academic and cultural assets that have often taken generations to develop. Second, public universities face financial obligations that extend beyond classroom instruction, including the preservation of libraries, museums, historical collections, laboratories, and archival materials. Third, private universities may possess financial resources, physical infrastructure, or organisational capacities that could complement the strengths of older public institutions. Finally, a fragmented institutional structure can make it more difficult to coordinate student recruitment, academic employment, research investment, and the development of specialised facilities.

The central argument of this article is that Iran should consider a systematic policy of public–private university integration, designed to combine institutional strengths, reduce avoidable duplication, and direct a greater proportion of available resources towards teaching, research, innovation, and the preservation of academic heritage.

Such integration should be regarded as a strategic reform of the national higher education system rather than a purely administrative exercise.

2. The Historical and Scientific Capital of Public Universities

2.1. Universities as repositories of accumulated knowledge

Universities with long institutional histories possess a distinctive form of capital that cannot be measured adequately through annual budgets, enrolment figures, or publication statistics. This capital consists of accumulated knowledge, scholarly traditions, institutional memory, historical collections, research relationships, and material resources developed over extended periods.

University libraries illustrate this point particularly well. In established institutions, libraries may contain rare books, historical manuscripts, early scientific publications, personal papers of distinguished scholars, specialised bibliographies, and collections documenting the intellectual development of the country. Such holdings are not merely educational facilities; they constitute part of the documentary infrastructure through which future generations can reconstruct and critically examine Iran's scientific and cultural history.

University museums have a comparable significance. Their collections may preserve scientific instruments, archaeological materials, natural-history specimens, teaching objects, and other evidence of the development of knowledge. Their academic value extends beyond the institutions that own them, creating opportunities for interdisciplinary research, public education, and collaboration with national museums and research centres.

Historical archives also provide resources for fields ranging from the history of science and medicine to sociology, political history, literature, and the history of education. When appropriately catalogued, digitised, and made accessible, these collections can support research that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to undertake.

The preservation of such resources requires specialised staff, appropriate environmental conditions, conservation laboratories, secure storage, digitisation equipment, and long-term investment. These requirements create continuing financial obligations, even when a collection generates little direct revenue.

2.2. The asymmetry between institutional heritage and financial capacity

A fundamental policy problem emerges when universities possessing substantial historical and scholarly assets lack the resources necessary to maintain and develop them adequately.

An institution may have a distinguished library but insufficient funding to acquire new publications, employ specialist cataloguers, or digitise its collections. It may maintain a valuable museum while lacking the personnel and technical facilities required for conservation and public access. It may possess experienced researchers and established academic departments but struggle to recruit additional scholars or replace obsolete laboratory equipment.

This situation reflects a broader distinction between possessing academic capital and having the financial capacity to utilise it effectively.

Public universities can be responsible for preserving assets whose value extends well beyond their immediate teaching and research activities. Yet the costs of these responsibilities may compete with spending on salaries, student services, digital infrastructure, laboratory maintenance, and new academic programmes.

The policy implication is not that public universities necessarily lack resources in every field or that private universities are uniformly better funded. Rather, the financial and institutional capacities of individual universities differ, and the national system should be designed to make complementary capacities available where they are most needed.

The historical assets of public universities should consequently be recognised as a form of national academic infrastructure. Their maintenance and development should be incorporated into long-term higher education planning rather than left entirely to the financial circumstances of individual institutions.

3. The Financial Structure of Iranian Higher Education

3.1. Public financing and the limitations of institutional budgets

Public universities operate within a framework of government financing, tuition revenue where applicable, research grants, and other institutional income. Their financial responsibilities are extensive because they must support both current educational activities and the continued operation of established academic infrastructure.

Iran's higher education financing arrangements reflect the state's substantial role in allocating resources to public institutions. UNESCO's education-financing profile for Iran describes public higher education as partially subsidised and identifies tuition fees as a principal source of financing for private universities, alongside conditional government grants (UNESCO, n.d.).

These arrangements create different financial conditions for institutions operating under public and private models. Public universities must balance their educational responsibilities and research missions against available appropriations and other income. Private universities, meanwhile, may rely more heavily on tuition revenue and therefore face different incentives concerning enrolment, programme provision, and investment.

It is important to distinguish the structural argument from an unverified generalisation: the fact that a university is private does not automatically mean it has more resources than a public university. Some private institutions may be financially constrained, while particular public universities may possess substantial assets and research funding. A sound integration policy must therefore begin with institution-level financial and academic assessments.

Nevertheless, where a private institution has underused facilities or financial capacity and a public university has valuable academic collections or specialised research expertise but inadequate operating resources, the absence of effective cooperation may represent a lost opportunity for the national system.

3.2. Tuition policy and the cost of maintaining academic quality

Tuition policy is an important element of this debate. Public universities that charge relatively low tuition for particular categories of students may provide essential access to higher education, but low tuition revenue can also mean that tuition alone cannot cover the full cost of modern teaching and research.

It would be misleading to attribute public universities' financial difficulties exclusively to low tuition. Government appropriations, inflation, staff costs, capital investment, research grants, institutional management, and the distribution of resources also influence their financial position. Nevertheless, where tuition revenue is deliberately limited to protect access, adequate alternative financing becomes especially important.

The comparison with Western universities requires similar care. Tuition fees at some Western institutions, particularly certain universities in the United States, can be exceptionally high. However, tuition arrangements vary considerably across countries, institutions, degree programmes, and student categories. Many European public universities, for example, charge substantially lower fees than expensive American institutions.

The relevant question is therefore not whether Iranian public universities should imitate the highest tuition levels found abroad. It is how Iran can finance high-quality higher education without making access excessively dependent on family income.

Institutional integration offers one possible response. By sharing facilities, coordinating procurement, consolidating duplicative administrative functions, and improving the use of existing infrastructure, universities may be able to redirect resources towards teaching and research while retaining affordable tuition arrangements.

Such savings would not eliminate the need for adequate public investment. Integration should complement sustainable financing, not become an excuse for reducing the resources available to universities.

4. The Rationale for Integrating Public and Private Universities

4.1. Reducing institutional fragmentation

A higher education system becomes less efficient when institutions independently maintain facilities, administrative systems, academic programmes, and technical services that could be provided more effectively through coordination.

Some duplication is justified. Universities need distinctive academic missions, and geographically dispersed institutions must maintain sufficient facilities to serve their students. However, unnecessary duplication can impose costs without generating corresponding educational or scientific benefits.

For example, universities located within the same metropolitan area may independently operate specialised laboratories, digital platforms, purchasing departments, career services, or research-support offices, even when coordinated provision could improve utilisation and reduce expenditure.

Integration could create opportunities to share selected facilities and services, coordinate academic programmes, and pool resources for expensive research infrastructure. The resulting benefits would depend on actual demand, geographic accessibility, and the costs of coordination.

The OECD distinguishes among collaboration, alliances, and mergers. Collaboration allows institutions to share particular activities or resources; alliances establish broader cooperation while preserving separate legal identities; and mergers consolidate institutions into a single legal entity, although the constituent institutions may retain distinct names and organisational arrangements (OECD, 2020).

This distinction is essential for Iran. Full legal merger is only one instrument available to policymakers, and it should not automatically be the starting point in every case.

4.2. Combining complementary institutional strengths

The strongest argument for public–private integration is the possibility of combining resources that are complementary rather than interchangeable.

An established public university may possess experienced academics, specialised research traditions, extensive libraries, historical archives, and recognised academic departments. A private institution may have modern teaching facilities, digital systems, specialised professional programmes, or additional capacity to invest in particular fields.

A structured partnership could make these resources available to a broader academic community.

For example, a joint research centre could combine the historical collections of a public university with digital infrastructure and technical expertise contributed by a partner institution. A shared laboratory could provide advanced equipment to researchers from both institutions, avoiding unnecessary duplication of expensive instruments. Joint graduate programmes could connect established academic departments with emerging research areas and professional expertise.

Such arrangements would also make it possible to develop shared doctoral schools, interdisciplinary institutes, specialised conservation centres, and joint programmes in areas where individual institutions lack sufficient resources to establish competitive provision independently.

The objective should not be to assume that one institutional model is inherently superior to the other. It should be to establish an organisational framework in which the strengths of different institutions can contribute to a common scientific purpose.

4.3. Concentrating resources on academic performance

Institutional integration can also help shift the emphasis of university management from organisational expansion towards academic performance.

When institutions compete primarily for enrolment, revenue, buildings, and institutional prestige, they may face incentives to expand administrative structures or introduce programmes without sufficient regard to their contribution to national research and educational priorities.

A coordinated system could instead assess investment proposals according to measurable academic needs, including student demand, teaching quality, research potential, graduate employment, infrastructure requirements, and the preservation of important scholarly collections.

This would not require eliminating competition between universities. Constructive competition can encourage innovation, improve teaching, and support academic excellence. The objective would be to prevent avoidable institutional duplication from consuming resources that could be used more productively.

The OECD's analysis of higher education financing identifies institutional concentration, collaboration, alliances, and mergers as policy approaches that can support efficiency and academic specialisation. It also cautions, implicitly through its discussion of policy choices and implementation challenges, against assuming that consolidation automatically produces better outcomes (OECD, 2020).

Iran should therefore approach integration as a means of improving the allocation of resources, with success measured by educational and research outcomes rather than by the number of institutions eliminated.

5. Student Recruitment, Academic Employment, and the National Labour Market

5.1. Coordinating student recruitment

Universities are responsible for providing educational opportunities that respond to students' academic interests and the changing needs of society. However, when programmes are developed without adequate coordination, institutions may compete for the same pool of students while maintaining expensive facilities or courses with insufficient enrolment.

A coordinated system could improve the distribution of students across institutions and disciplines. Joint admissions information, transferable credits, shared introductory courses, cross-registration, and coordinated programme planning could make educational pathways more flexible.

Students could benefit from access to a broader range of laboratories, libraries, academic advisers, and specialist courses without necessarily having to change institutions. Universities could also coordinate the development of programmes in fields where national demand is increasing or where specialised facilities are costly to maintain.

The purpose would not be to maximise student enrolment without regard to academic standards. Rather, it would be to attract and educate the largest feasible number of qualified students while maintaining educational quality and ensuring that graduates acquire relevant knowledge and skills.

5.2. Improving the recruitment and distribution of academic personnel

Academic staff constitute one of the most important resources in higher education. Experienced professors, early-career researchers, laboratory specialists, librarians, archivists, museum professionals, and technical personnel all contribute to the functioning of an effective university.

Institutional fragmentation can limit opportunities for collaboration and create difficulties in distributing scarce expertise. A specialist may be employed at one institution while nearby universities lack access to the same expertise. In other cases, individual universities may find it difficult to sustain specialised positions because their research activities are too small or their budgets too constrained.

Integration could facilitate joint appointments, shared specialist positions, visiting-professor arrangements, inter-university research teams, and coordinated recruitment for fields where qualified personnel are scarce.

It could also support more transparent career pathways and reduce unnecessary competition for the same limited pool of researchers.

These arrangements should be accompanied by safeguards for employment rights, academic freedom, merit-based recruitment, and fair evaluation. Integration must not become a mechanism for indiscriminate staff reductions or the concentration of opportunities in a small number of favoured institutions.

The intended outcome is more effective use of academic expertise, alongside the creation of additional opportunities for research, teaching, and professional development.

5.3. Strengthening connections with employment and industry

Universities also have a responsibility to prepare graduates for professional life. Greater coordination could improve links between academic programmes, employers, research organisations, public services, and industries requiring advanced technical skills.

Shared career centres, joint internship programmes, collaborative research projects, and coordinated labour-market analysis could help institutions identify emerging skill requirements.

A larger institutional network could also support more effective partnerships with employers that cannot sustain separate relationships with every university. This would be particularly valuable for specialised research and technical training requiring expensive equipment or access to industrial facilities.

However, employment outcomes should not become the sole measure of university performance. Universities must preserve their broader intellectual missions, including basic research, the humanities, cultural preservation, and the development of critical and analytical abilities.

An integrated system should therefore combine professional relevance with the independent pursuit of knowledge.

6. University Libraries, Museums, and Archives as Shared National Infrastructure

6.1. Protecting documentary and cultural heritage

One of the most important potential benefits of integration concerns the preservation and accessibility of historical academic collections.

The libraries, museums, and archives of established Iranian universities should be understood as components of a wider national research infrastructure. Their significance extends beyond the institutions in which they are housed and encompasses the study of Iranian history, language, literature, archaeology, medicine, science, and intellectual traditions.

Yet the preservation of these collections requires sustained investment that may not be adequately reflected in conventional university performance indicators.

A rare manuscript, historical scientific instrument, or archival collection may have considerable scholarly value even if it attracts relatively few users in a particular year. Decisions about its preservation cannot be based exclusively on immediate financial returns.

An integrated higher education policy could establish dedicated funding mechanisms for the conservation, cataloguing, digitisation, and scholarly use of such collections.

Participating universities could pool expertise in archival science, digital preservation, conservation, metadata standards, and research access. Shared digital repositories could enable scholars to discover materials held by different institutions, while digitisation programmes could reduce the need to handle fragile originals.

Such initiatives would be particularly valuable for researchers working across disciplinary and institutional boundaries.

6.2. Establishing a national academic heritage network

Iran could develop a coordinated network connecting university libraries, museums, archives, and specialised research collections.

The network could include a shared catalogue, interoperable digital repositories, common preservation standards, coordinated training for specialist personnel, and joint applications for research funding.

Importantly, coordination need not entail transferring ownership of collections or physically relocating them. In many cases, preserving collections at their existing locations would be preferable because their historical context, specialist staff, and relationships with established academic departments are themselves valuable.

The aim should be to expand access and strengthen preservation while protecting institutional responsibility and scholarly independence.

A national academic heritage network would also create opportunities for public engagement. Digitised collections, exhibitions, educational resources, and collaborative museum programmes could connect university research with schools, independent scholars, cultural institutions, and the wider public.

This approach would help ensure that institutional integration contributes not only to administrative efficiency but also to the preservation and transmission of Iran's intellectual heritage.

7. Financial Efficiency and the Reallocation of Resources

7.1. Economies of scale and shared services

The financial case for integration rests partly on economies of scale. Some university activities require substantial fixed expenditure, while their cost per user can decline when facilities are used more intensively.

Examples include high-performance computing, advanced laboratory equipment, digital-library subscriptions, specialised conservation facilities, research administration, and certain information-technology systems.

Where multiple universities maintain comparable facilities with low utilisation rates, coordinated provision may reduce expenditure and improve access. Joint purchasing may also strengthen negotiating capacity and reduce the duplication of administrative work.

However, not every function benefits from consolidation. Transport costs, geographic distance, incompatible systems, increased coordination requirements, and additional management layers can offset anticipated savings.

The appropriate approach is therefore to identify specific opportunities for integration through detailed financial and operational analysis rather than to presume that larger institutions are necessarily more efficient.

7.2. Redirecting savings towards teaching and research

The purpose of efficiency measures should be to release resources for activities that directly advance academic objectives.

Potential priorities include:

• Recruiting and retaining qualified academic and technical personnel.

• Modernising laboratories, classrooms, and digital learning environments.

• Expanding doctoral education and competitive research funding.

• Supporting interdisciplinary research and international academic cooperation.

• Maintaining historical libraries, museums, and archival collections.

• Improving student accommodation, academic advising, and career services.

• Providing scholarships and financial assistance to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

A credible integration programme should identify these priorities in advance and establish mechanisms to ensure that realised savings are reinvested transparently.

Otherwise, institutional consolidation could produce administrative changes without improving the quality of education or research.

7.3. Financial transparency and accountability

Integration would also provide an opportunity to improve financial reporting across the higher education system.

Participating institutions should publish comparable information on operating expenditure, staffing, student numbers, research investment, infrastructure utilisation, tuition revenue, and the costs of preserving academic collections.

Such transparency would help policymakers identify duplication, assess financial sustainability, and determine whether proposed mergers or partnerships are likely to produce genuine benefits.

Independent financial audits and public reporting should accompany major integration projects. Decisions should be justified by demonstrable educational and research objectives rather than by institutional prestige or political considerations.

8. A Proposed Model for Iran: From Cooperation to Integration

A nationwide reform should not assume that every university requires the same institutional arrangement. A more practical approach would involve several stages.

Stage One: A comprehensive national audit

The first stage should establish a reliable evidence base for reform.

An independent assessment should examine the financial position, academic strengths, student demand, staffing, facilities, research performance, and historical collections of public and private universities.

The assessment should identify underused infrastructure, overlapping programmes, shortages of specialist personnel, regional inequalities, and opportunities for shared investment.

It should also distinguish institutions that are financially viable and academically distinctive from those that may require restructuring, partnership, or a different educational mission.

No institution should be selected for merger solely because of its ownership category, age, size, or financial circumstances.

Stage Two: Shared services and research infrastructure

The second stage should focus on measures that can generate benefits without immediately changing institutional ownership or legal status.

Universities could establish shared laboratories, joint research centres, common digital platforms, cooperative library services, and coordinated procurement arrangements.

Joint appointments and cross-registration could improve the circulation of expertise and educational opportunities.

These arrangements would provide an opportunity to test whether cooperation produces measurable benefits before more extensive institutional changes are undertaken.

Stage Three: Regional university alliances

The third stage could establish regional alliances bringing together public universities, private universities, research institutes, and other relevant academic organisations.

Within each alliance, institutions could coordinate programme development, share selected facilities, develop joint postgraduate education, and collaborate on regional research priorities.

An alliance could retain the distinctive identities of its constituent institutions while coordinating activities that benefit from greater scale.

For example, a regional alliance might maintain separate teaching campuses while operating shared advanced laboratories, a joint doctoral school, and a coordinated digital-library network.

This model would allow Iran to pursue integration without unnecessarily centralising all educational activities in a small number of major cities.

Stage Four: Selective institutional mergers

Full mergers should be considered where evidence indicates that a more unified institutional structure would deliver sustained benefits.

Potential cases might include institutions with substantially overlapping missions, geographically proximate campuses, compatible academic programmes, or financial circumstances that make independent operation difficult to sustain.

A merger could consolidate administrative structures and research activities while preserving valuable departmental traditions, historical collections, and distinctive educational programmes.

The terms of each merger should specify the future of academic staff, student enrolment, existing qualifications, research grants, buildings, libraries, museums, archives, and institutional endowments.

Independent evaluation should determine whether the merger is likely to improve educational quality, financial sustainability, and research capacity.

Stage Five: A national framework for evaluation

All integration arrangements should be subject to periodic review.

Evaluation should consider not only expenditure but also educational outcomes, research quality, staff retention, student access, graduate employment, public engagement, and the preservation of historical collections.

The results should be published so that successful approaches can be expanded and unsuccessful arrangements can be modified.

This staged model would allow policymakers to distinguish between integration that improves academic performance and consolidation that merely changes organisational structures.

9. Governance, Academic Freedom, and Institutional Diversity

The benefits of integration cannot be assessed without considering its potential risks.

First, larger institutions may become more bureaucratic. A merger that introduces additional management layers or centralises routine decisions could make academic administration less responsive.

Second, institutional consolidation may weaken distinctive academic traditions. Smaller universities can make important contributions through regional specialisation, innovative teaching, or research in fields that would otherwise receive insufficient attention.

Third, staff and students may experience uncertainty concerning employment, admissions, qualifications, departmental structures, and the continuation of existing programmes.

Fourth, excessive centralisation could reduce competition and limit the diversity of academic approaches.

These risks demonstrate why integration should be guided by academic objectives rather than administrative uniformity.

Academic freedom must remain a fundamental principle. Decisions about research questions, teaching content, scholarly publication, and academic appointments should be protected from inappropriate political or commercial interference.

The governance of integrated institutions should include meaningful representation for academic staff, students, professional employees, and relevant public stakeholders. Clear procedures should govern institutional mergers, resource allocation, staff transfers, and the resolution of disputes.

Private universities that join public institutions or regional alliances should also receive transparent treatment concerning their assets, contractual obligations, governance arrangements, and financial contributions. Any transfer of ownership or public assumption of liabilities should be based on independent valuation and clear legal procedures.

Finally, integration must preserve legitimate institutional diversity. The objective is not to create a single uniform university model for the entire country but to develop a coherent system in which different institutions can contribute effectively to shared national goals.

10. International Experience and the Limits of Consolidation

International experience provides useful analytical guidance, although no foreign model can be transferred directly to Iran without adaptation.

The OECD's report Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences examines how governments use institutional cooperation, alliances, mergers, and the concentration of research capacity to address financial pressures and improve the organisation of higher education. It also emphasises that institutional structures, funding arrangements, and local circumstances influence the results of these policies (OECD, 2020).

This evidence supports a distinction between the rationale for integration and its actual effects.

The rationale may be compelling where institutions duplicate expensive facilities, operate overlapping programmes, or lack sufficient scale to sustain specialised research. Yet the outcomes depend on implementation, governance, institutional compatibility, and the extent to which resources are genuinely redirected towards academic activities.

Integration can also impose transition costs. Existing information systems may be incompatible, employment arrangements may differ, and geographically separated campuses may require continued independent services. Savings projected before a merger may therefore take time to materialise or may not materialise at all.

For Iran, the most relevant lesson is that integration should be treated as an instrument of higher education policy rather than as an objective in itself.

The success of reform must be judged by its contribution to scientific development, educational quality, equitable access, financial sustainability, and the preservation of academic heritage.

11. Implementation Challenges and Policy Safeguards

A successful integration policy would require several safeguards.

First, institutional autonomy must be protected. Universities should retain sufficient authority to determine academic priorities, develop specialised programmes, and manage their research activities within an agreed national framework.

Second, financial arrangements must be explicit. The government should specify how public funding will be allocated within integrated institutions and how any private assets, liabilities, or contractual commitments will be treated.

Third, students' rights must be guaranteed. Existing students should be able to complete their programmes under clearly defined transitional arrangements, with qualifications and academic records protected.

Fourth, staff protections must be established. Integration should include transparent procedures for appointments, promotions, transfers, and the recognition of professional expertise.

Fifth, regional access must be maintained. Consolidation should not require students to travel unreasonable distances or eliminate educational opportunities in areas with limited provision.

Sixth, academic heritage must receive dedicated protection. Libraries, museums, and archives should be assessed individually, with conservation responsibilities and long-term funding secured before organisational restructuring takes place.

Seventh, implementation must be evidence-based. Pilot projects, independent audits, published performance indicators, and periodic reviews should guide the expansion of integration.

These safeguards would help ensure that institutional change improves the capacity of universities to fulfil their educational and scientific responsibilities.

Final Thought

The organisation of higher education in Iran should be reconsidered in light of the country's scientific ambitions, financial constraints, human-resource requirements, and historical intellectual heritage.

Public universities possess forms of academic capital that have accumulated over generations. Their libraries, museums, archives, research collections, experienced scholars, and established academic traditions constitute resources of lasting national significance. Maintaining these assets requires sustained investment, specialist expertise, and institutional arrangements capable of connecting historical resources with contemporary scientific development.

Private universities may offer complementary financial, organisational, and infrastructural capacities, although their strengths and limitations differ from institution to institution. A coordinated policy could enable these resources to support a broader national academic mission.

The integration of public and private universities should therefore be considered as a means of improving resource allocation, reducing unnecessary duplication, expanding access to research infrastructure, strengthening academic recruitment, coordinating student opportunities, and directing a greater proportion of available resources towards education and scientific advancement.

The case for integration is strongest when it is understood not as the elimination of institutional diversity but as the creation of a more coherent and productive academic system. Shared services, regional alliances, joint research centres, and selective mergers can provide different routes towards this objective.

For Iran, the ultimate purpose should be to ensure that its universities operate not merely as separate educational organisations but as interconnected components of a national system of knowledge production, cultural preservation, and human-capital development.

Such a system would combine the historical depth of established public universities with the complementary capacities of other higher education institutions. If supported by sustainable financing, transparent governance, academic freedom, and rigorous evaluation, integration could become an important instrument for strengthening Iran's scientific institutions and preserving the intellectual resources upon which future generations will depend.

References

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en

UNESCO. (n.d.). Financing for Equity in Higher Education: Iran, Islamic Republic of. Global Education Monitoring Report, Education Profiles. https://gem-report-education-profiles.unesco.org/node/1930.html

Papadimitriou, M., & Johnes, J. (2019). Does merging improve efficiency? A study of English universities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1454–1474. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1450851

Research Note

This article presents a policy argument and a proposed framework for institutional reform. It does not claim that comprehensive public–private university mergers have already been demonstrated to improve Iran's higher education system. Establishing that conclusion would require institution-level data on budgets, tuition revenue, research output, student outcomes, employment, infrastructure utilisation, and the condition of historical collections. Such evidence would also be necessary to determine which institutions should collaborate, form alliances, or merge, and which should retain their independent status.

Sources supporting the article

• OECD — Resourcing Higher Education (2020): Examines institutional cooperation, alliances, mergers, concentration of research capacity, and the potential for efficiency gains.

• UNESCO — Iran's higher education financing profile: Describes the partial public subsidisation of higher education and the reliance of private institutions on tuition fees and conditional government grants.

• Papadimitriou and Johnes (2019): A study examining whether university mergers improve efficiency in England, relevant to the article's discussion of the need to evaluate merger outcomes rather than assume benefits.

The article is written as an academic policy argument, not as an empirical study proving that all private universities should be merged with public universities. That distinction strengthens the proposal by making institutional integration conditional on evidence, financial feasibility, and protection of Iran's academic heritage.