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.
)