انقلاب آکادمیک دوم و ظهور دانشگاه کارآفرین؛ خوانش واقع‌گرایانه ظرفیت‌ها و محدویت‌های الگوی دانشگاه کارآفرین به‌مثابه موتور نوآوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

2 دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

3 دانشیار مؤسسه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی آموزش عالی

چکیده

در 40 سال اخیر دسته‌ای از تحولات اقتصادی و فنّاوری در عرصه جهانی به ‌همراه برخی رویداد‌های سیاسی و امنیتی خاص، تلقی خاصی از مأموریت دانشگاه مبنی بر مشارکت مستقیم در نوآوری و توسعه اقتصادی ایجاد کرده است. در این ‌راستا برخی از نظریات از جمله الگوی دانشگاه کارآفرین به ‌دلیل تمرکز بر تجاری‌سازی دانش، کارآفرینی دانشگاهی و توسعه نوآوری منطقه‌ای، توجهات گسترده‌تر دولت‌ها و سیاست‌گذاران را به‌ دنبال داشته است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارائه شناختی دقیق‌تر از چیستی ایده دانشگاه کارآفرین، عوامل مؤثر در پیدایش آن و پیامد‌های مترتب بر توسعه آن، زمینه را برای بررسی واقع‌گرایانه ظرفیت‌ها و محدودیت‌های این الگو فراهم می‌کند و از این طریق تلاش دارد سیاست‌گذاری عالمانه آموزش عالی را در مواجهه با الگوی دانشگاه کارآفرین تسهیل کند. برای این‌منظور مجموعه منتخبی از مقالات مرجع و مؤثر مرتبط با الگوی دانشگاه کارآفرین، طی چهار مرحله تحلیل مضمون شده است. نتایج این تحلیل نشان می‌دهد انقلاب آکادمیک دوم، مضمون فراگیری است که در الگوی مذکور، چیستی و مراحل توسعه آن به همراه پیشران‌ها و عوامل شکل‌گیری و نیز پیامد‌های مترتب بر آن تبیین شده است. در پایان با قرار دادن این نتایج در بستر پیشینه پژوهشیِ گسترده‌ترِ نقش دانشگاه در نوآوری، محدودیت‌های اصلی این الگو شناسایی و بحث شده است. بر این مبنا دلالت‌های نظریه دانشگاه کارآفرین درخصوص پیشران‌های تحول مأموریتی دانشگاه، بیشترین سازگاری را با شواهد و نتایج حاصل از دیگر پژوهش‌ها دارد، اما سایر دلالت‌های این نظریه، از جمله فراگیری انقلاب آکادمیک دوم و فازها و پیامد‌های آن با محدودیت‌های متعددی مواجه است. در مجموع، این بررسی بر زمینه‌های امکانی محدود و نیز مطلوبیت محدود الگوی دانشگاه کارآفرین دلالت دارد، به‌گونه‌ای که تعابیری مانند انقلاب آکادمیک دوم و نسل سوم دانشگاه‌ها اغراق‌آمیز و خلاف واقع به‌نظر می‎آید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Second Academic Revolution and Emergence of Entrepreneurial University: A Realistic Reading of the Capacities and Limitations of the Entrepreneurial University Model as the Engine of Innovation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Shahsavari 1
  • Jamileh Alam Al-Huda 2
  • Gholamreza Zaker-Salehi 3
  • Abaslat Khorasani 2
1 PhD Student (Higher Education), Shahid Beheshti University
2 Associate Professor of Shahid Beheshti University
3 Associate Professor, Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (IRPHE)
چکیده [English]

Over the past forty years, a series of economic and technological developments at the global level along with some specific political and security events have created a particular approach to the mission of university based on its direct participation in innovation and economic development. In this regard, some ideas, including the entrepreneurial university model, due to focusing on commercialization of knowledge, university entrepreneurship, and promotion of regional innovation, have drawn wider attention of governments and policymakers. The present study, by trying to propose a more precise knowledge of the nature of entrepreneurial university, factors affecting its emergence, and consequences of its development, aims to prepare the grounds for a realistic study of the capacities and limitations of this model, which could in turn facilitate higher education’s professional policymaking in encounter with the entrepreneurial university model. To this aim, a series of select reference and effective articles related to the entrepreneurial university model were analyzed in four stages through thematic analysis method. The results of this study show that the second academic revolution is a comprehensive theme, whose nature, stages of development along with its drivers and formation factors as well as its consequences have been explained in the mentioned model. Finally, by putting the results of this research in the context of a wider review of the literature on the role of university in innovation, the main limitations of this model were identified and discussed. Based on this study, the implications of the theory of entrepreneurial university regarding the drivers of a change in university mission have the highest degree of compatibility with the results and evidences of other studies. But, other implications of this theory, including the comprehensibility of the second academic revolution and its phases and consequences face several limitations. Overall, this study connotes to the limited possible grounds as well as limited desirability of the entrepreneurial university model to the extent that expressions such as the second academic revolution and the third generation universities are exaggerative and unrealistic.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • University
  • Innovation
  • University Mission
  • Entrepreneurial University
  • Second Academic Revolution

مراجع

1. شهسواری، امیر؛ جمیله علم‌الهدی؛ غلامرضا ذاکرصالحی؛ اباصلت خراسانی و مریم خادمی. (1399). تحلیل سیاست‌های ارتقاء اعضای هیئت علمی در چارچوب نقش دانشگاه در توسعه نوآوری. مطالعات راهبردی سیاست‌گذاری عمومی. 10 (34). 2-34.
2. ***Agrawal, A. & R. Henderson. (2002). Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. Management Science. 48(1). 44-60.
3. Aronowitz, S. (2000). The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Learning. Boston: Beacon.
4. Arundel, A. & A. Geuna. (2004). Proximity and the Use of Public Science. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 13(6). 559-580.
5. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic Networks: an Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research. 1(3). 385-405.
6. ***Audretsch, D. (2014). From the Entrepreneurial University to the University for the Entrepreneurial Society. The Journal of Technology Transfer. No. 39. 313-321.
7. Barnett, R. (2017). Constructing the University: Towards a Social Philosophy of Higher Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 49(1). 78-88.
8. ***Bozeman, B.; D. Fay. & C. P. Slade. (2013). Research Collaboration in Universities and Academic Entrepreneurship: the-State-of-the-Art. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 38(1). 1–67.
9. Braun, V. & V. Clarke. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2). 77-101.
10. ***Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. (Vol. 2). New York: Elsevier Science Regional Sales.
11. Cohen, W.; R. Nelson. & J. Walsh. (2002). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. Management Science. No. 48. 1-23.
12. ***D’Este, P. & M. Perkmann. (2011). Why Do Academics Engage with Industry? The Entrepreneurial University and Individual Motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 36(3). 316–339.
13. ***Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science. Minerva. Vol. 21. No. 2/3. 198-233.
14. ***Etzkowitz, H. (1993). Enterprises from Science: The Origins of Science-Based Regional Economic Development. Minerva. Vol. 31. Issue 3 326-360.
15. ***Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University–Industry Linkages. Research Policy. Vol. 27. Issue 8. 823-833.
16. ***Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The Second Academic Revolution and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. Vol. 20. Issue 2. 18-29.
17. ***Etzkowitz, H. (2003A). Innovation in Innovation: the Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations. Social Science Information. 42(3). 293-337.
18. ***Etzkowitz, H. (2003B). Research Groups as ‘Quasi-Firms’: the Invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy. 32(1). 109-121.
19. ***Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The Evolution of the Entrepreneurial University. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation. Vol. 1. Issue 1. 64-77.
20. ***Etzkowitz, H. (2016). The Entrepreneurial University: Vision and Metrics. Industry and Higher Education. 30(2). 83-97.
21. ***Etzkowitz, H. & M. Klofsten. (2005). The Innovating Region: toward a Theory of Knowledge Based Regional Development. R&D Management. 35(3). 243-255.
22. ***Etzkowitz, H. & L. Leydesdorff. (1995). The Triple Helix--University-industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development. EASST Review. Vol. 14. No. 1. 14-19.
23. ***Etzkowitz, H. & L. Leydesdorff. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy. Vol. 29. Issue 2. 109-123.
24. ***Etzkowitz, H. & R. Viale. (2010). Polyvalent Knowledge and the Entrepreneurial University: A Third Academic Revolution? Critical Sociology . 36(4). 595-609.
25. ***Etzkowitz, H.; A. Webster.; C. Gebhardt. & B. Terra. (2000). The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy. 29(2). 313-330.
26. Feldman , M. & P. Desrochers. (2003). Research Universities And Localeconomic Development: Lessonsfrom the History of the Johnshopkins University. Industry and Innovation. 10(1). 5–24.
27. Feldman, M. (1994). The University and Economic Development: The Case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly. 8(1). 67-76.
28. ***Feldman, M. P. (2003). Entrepreneurship and American Research Universities: Evolution in Technology Transfer. In The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy: Governance. Start-ups, and Growth in the US Knowledge Economy (pp. 92-112). Cambridge University Press.
29. Florida, R. (1999). The Role of the University: Leveraging Talent, not Technology. Issues in Science and Technology. Vol. XV. No. 4. 67-73.
30. ***Garnsey, E. (2007). The Entrepreneurial University. In How Universities Promote Economic Growth (p. 227). Edward Elgar.
31. ***Geiger, R. (2006). The Quest for ‘Economic Relevance’by US research Universities. Higher Education Policy. No. 19. 411-431.
32. ***Geuna, A. & A. Muscio. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva. No. 47. 93-114.
33. Gibb, A. & P. Hannon. (2006). Towards the Entrepreneurial University. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. No. 4. 73-110.
34. Goddard, J. & L. Kempton. (2016). The Civic University؛ Universities in the leadership and management of Place. Newcastle University: Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies.
35. Graneheim, U. & B. Lundman. (2004). Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing Research: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. No. 24. 105-112.
36. ***Gulbrandsen, M. & S. Slipersæter. (2007). The Third Mission and the Entrepreneurial University Model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio. Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation (pp. 112-143). Edward Elgar.
37. Klevorick, A.; R. Levin; R. Nelson. & S. Winter. (1995). On the sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities. Research Policy. No. 24. 185-205.
38. ***Klofsten, M. & D. Jones-Evans. (2000). Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – The Case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics. No. 14. 299–309.
39. ***Larsen, M. T. (2011). The Implications of Academic Enterprise for Public Science: An Overview of the Empirical Evidence. Research Policy. No. 40. 6-19.
40. Leslie, S. & R. Kargon. (1996). Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman’s Model for Regional Advantage. Business History Revieic. No. 70. 435-472.
41. Lester, R. (2005). Universities, Innovation, and the Competitiveness of Local Economies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Industrial Performance Center. Working Paper Series.
42. Leydesdorff, L. & H. Etzkowitz. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 23. Issue 5. 279-286.
43. ***Leydesdorff, L. & H. Etzkowitz. (1998). The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies. Science and Public Policy. 25(3). 195-203.
44. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2008). Higher Education, Innovation, and Economic Development. In Higher Education and Development (pp. 201-228). World Bank.
45. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic Research and Industrial Innovation. Research Policy. Vol. 20. Issue 1. 1-12.
46. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 77. Issue 1. 55-65.
47. ***Martin, B. (2003). The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University. In Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance (pp. 7-29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
48. Mowery, D. (2006). University-Industry Research Collaboration and Technology Transfer in the United States Since 1980. In Y. Shahid & K. Nabeshima. How Universities Promote Economic Growth (pp. 163-181). The World Bank.
49. Mowery, D. C.; R. Nelson; B. Sampat. & A. Ziedonis. (2001). The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: an Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy. 30(1). 99-119.
50. Mowery, D. & B. Sampat. (2005). Universities in National Innovation Systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery & R. Nelson, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (Vol. 30, pp. 209-239). Oxford University Press.
51. Narin, F.; K. Hamilton. & D. Olivastro. (1997). The Increasing Linkage between US Technology and Public Science. Research Policy. Vol. 26. Issue 3. 317-330.
52. Nelson, R. (2004). The Market Economy, and the Scientific Commons. Research Policy. No. 33. 455–471.
53. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: towards a Taxonomy and a Theory. Research Policy. Vol. 13. Issue 6. 343-373.
54. Pavitt, K. (1998). Do Patents Reflect the Useful Research output of Universities?. Research Evaluation. No. 7. 105-111.
55. Pavitt, K. (2001). Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice?(And What They Should not Learn). Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol. 10. Issue 3. 761-779.
56. ***Perkmann, M.; V. Tartari; M. McKelvey; E. Autio; A. Broström; P. D’Este; … & M. Sobrero. (2013). Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University–Industry Relations. Research Policy. No. 42. 423-442.
57. ***Ranga, M. & H. Etzkowitz. (2013). Triple Helix Systems: an Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry & Higher Education. 27(3). 237–262.
58. Rosenberg, N. & R. Nelson. (1994). American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry. Research Policy. No. 23. 323-348.
59. ***Rothaermel, F.; S. Agung. & L. Jiang. (2007). University Entrepreneurship: a Taxonomy of the Literature. Industrial and Corporate Change. No. 16. 691–791.
60. Rutherford, J. (2005). Cultural Studies in the Corporate University. Cultural Studies. 19(3). 297-317.
61. Salter, A. & B. Martin. (2001). The Economic Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research: a Critical Review. Research Policy. No. 30. 509-532.
62. Salter, A.; P. D’Este; K. Pavitt; A. Scott; B. Martin; A. Geuna; … & P. Patel. (2000). Talent, not Technology: the Impact of Publicly Funded Research on Innovation in the UK. UK: University of Sussex.
63. Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal Ideology and Public Higher Education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. 8(1). 41-77.
64. ***Shinn, T. (2002). The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge: Prepackaged Thinking on Science and Technology. Social Studies of Science. 32(4). 599–614.
65. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
66. Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in Academic Research? Trends and Futures Scenarios. European Journal of Education. Vol. 41. Issue 2. 169-202.
فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی راهبرد فرهنگ
دوره 13، شماره 49
خرداد 1399
صفحه 77-118

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار