developing a model to analyze the level of university – industry cooperation with used Interpretive Structural modeling
Subject Areas :
aliakbar aminbidokhti
1
,
drnemati drnemati
2
,
alimohammad rezaei
3
,
ahmad mohammadi
4
1 -
2 - گروه مدیریت آموزش عالی، دانشکده روان شناسی وعلوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
3 -
4 - استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری، سبزوار، ایران.
Keywords: University, industry, university-industry relationship, interpretive structural modeling,
Abstract :
ABSTRACT Cooperation between university and industry is not a new topic. Although there are some tested and used models for characterizing and analyzing this cooperation, these models have proven to be inefficient and unsuccessful in some countries. Therefore in this study we developed a model to analyze the level of university – industry cooperation in Iran. Furthermore we identified and ranked the barriers hampering and blocking this cooperation. In order to do so we used Interpretive Structural modeling (ISM) and Friedman test. Since ISM is based on the views of scholars we asked 33 experts both from university and industry to provide their views and comments about the present condition of university – industry cooperation. Using research findings we ranked barriers that hamper university – industry cooperation respectively as: 1- lack of trust between industry sector and academia; 2- lack of demand – centered research and dissertations; and 3-motivational issues.
1. جعفر نژاد، احمد، مهدوی، عبدالحمید، خالقی سروش، فریبا (1384)، بررسی موانع و ارائه راه کارهای توسعه متقابل صنعت و دانشگاه، دانش مدیریت، شماره 71، صص 62-42.
2. شفیعی، مسعود؛ موسوی، سید عبدالرضا (1392)، تحلیل محتوای موانع، فرصت ها و راهکارهای توسعه ارتباط صنعت و دانشگاه در پانزده کنگره سه جانبه، دو فصل نامه نوآوری و ارزش آفرینی، سال اول، شماره سه، صص 6-19.
3. فائض، علی، شهابی، علی (1389)، ارزیابی و اولویت بندی موانع ارتباط دانشگاه و صنعت، فصل نامه رهبری و مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد گرم سار، سال چهارم، شماره 2، صص 124-97.
4. Abramo, G., D Angelo, C.A., Costa, F. D., & Solazzi. M.(2009), University industry collaboration in Italy: a bibliometric examination, Technovation, 29, pp.498 507.
5. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1994) R&D spillovers and innovative activity. Manag Decis Econ 15:131–138.
6. Arundel A, Geuna A (2004) Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Econ Innov New Technol 36(6):559–580.
7. Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. R. (2009), How do collaborations With universities affect firms innovative performance? The role of Pasteur scientists in the advanced materials field, Research Policy, 38, pp.756 764.
8. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006), University industry interactions in applied research: the case of microelectronics, Research Policy, 35, pp.1616 1630.
9. Boardman, P. C. (2009), Government centrality to university industry interactions: university research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers, Research Policy, 38, pp.1505 1516.
10. Brooks H (1994) The relationship between science and technology policy. Res Policy 25:477–486.
11. Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., & Salter, A.(2010), Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university industry collaboration, Research Policy, 39, pp.858- 868.
12. Butcher, J., & Jeffrey, P. (2005), The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment, Technovation, 25, pp.1273 1280.
13. Chandran VGR, Farha AG, Veera P (2009) The role of collaboration, market and intellectual property rights awareness in university technology commercialization. Int J Innov Technol Manag 6(4):363–378.
14. Chandran, V. G. R., Sundram, V. P. K., & Santhidran, S. (2014). Innovation systems in Malaysia: a perspective of university—industry R&D collaboration. AI & society, 29(3), 435-444.
15. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manag Sci, 48(1):1–23.
16. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.
17. Etzkowitz H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Res Policy, 27:823–833.
18. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university– industry–government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123.
19. Frasquet, M., Calderón, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University–industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: an empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64(1), 85-98.
20. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.
21. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4), 567-586.
22. Kiper, M. (2010), Dunyada ve Turkiye de Universite-Sanayi Isbirligi, Turkiye Teknoloji Gelistime Vakfi Yayinlari, Ankara.
23. Laredo P, Mustar P (2001) Research and innovation policies in the new global economy. Elgar, Cheltenham.learning. New York: Pinter.
24. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (1996) Emergence of a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Sci Public Policy, 23:279–286.
25. Lundvall, B.-A° . (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactivemarketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64(1), 85–98.
26. Muscio, A., & Pozzali, A. (2013). The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: some evidence from Italian universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 486-508.
27. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Scarpinato, M. (2012), The effects of universities' proximity to industrial districts on university industry collaboration, China Economic Review, 23, (3), pp.639 650.
28. Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1-18.
29. ODABAŞI, A. Y., HELVACIOĞLU, Ş., İNSEL, M., & HELVACIOĞLU, İ. H. (2010). Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliğinde Örnek Bir Model. 2500 adet, 20.
30. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008), Engaging the scholar: three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry, Research Policy, 37, pp.1884 1891.
31. Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011), Engaging excellence? effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry, Research Policy, 40, pp.539 552.
32. Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011), The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university industry collaborations: a joint-patent analysis, Technovation, 31, pp.309 319.
33. Poyago‐Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: reflections on the growth of university–industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 10-21.
34. Rogers EM, Yin J, Hoffmann J (2000) Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at U.S. research universities. Association of University Technology Managers.
35. Rossi, F., (2010). “The governance of university-industry knowledge transfer” European Journal of Innovation Management Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 155-171.
36. Rothman, M. (2007), “Lessons learned: advice to employers from interns”, Journal of Education, for Business, Vol. 82 No. 3, p. 140.
37. Salter, A., Bruneel, J., (2009). “Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration” Paper to be presented at the Summer Conference on CBS - Copenhagen Business School.
38. Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002), Firm size and technology centrality in industry university interactions, Research Policy, 31, pp.1163 1180.
39. Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002), Firm size and technology centrality in industry university interactions, Research Policy, 31, pp.1163 1180.
40. Şendoğdu, A. A., & Diken, A. (2013). A research on the problems encountered in the collaboration between university and industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 966-975.
41. Sharabati-Shahin, M. H. N., & Thiruchelvam, K. (2013). The role of Diaspora in university–industry relationships in globalised knowledge economy: the case of Palestine. DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9566-8, High Educ , 65:613–629.
42. Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link AN (2002) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res Policy 31:1–22.
43. Sveiby K-E, Simaons R (2002) Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work: an empirical study. J Knowl Manag 6(5):420–433.
44. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2000) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. NBER Working Papers 7718, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.
45. Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008), Close enough but not too far: assessing the effects of university industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism, Research Policy, 37, pp.1854 1864.
46. Woolgar, L. (2007). New institutional policies for university–industry links in Japan. Research Policy, 36(8), 1261-1274.
