کارآفرینی دانشگاهی: طراحی و تدوین یک مدل گام به گام
محورهای موضوعی : تخصصی
1 - دانشگاه رازی
2 - دانشگاه پیام نور
کلید واژه: کارآفرینی دانشگاهی, مدل گام به گام, دانش دانشگاهی,
چکیده مقاله :
امروزه دانشگاه کارآفرین، کارآفرینی دانشگاهی و تجاری سازی تحقیقات دانشگاهی به نحوی در حال جلب توجه است که مؤسسات دانشگاهی را جهت کارآفرین تر شدن، تحت فشار گذاشته است. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر با هدف طراحی و تدوین یک مدل گام به گام کارآفرینی دانشگاهی انجام شده است. در این مدل پنج مرحله در فرآیند کارآفرینی دانشگاهی وجود دارند که عبارتند از: انگیزه، حکومت، انتخاب، رقابت و عملکرد. فرآیند کارآفرینی دانشگاهی از انگیزش اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه ها، صنایع و دولت، جهت تجاری سازی علم و دانش حاصل از تحقیقات دانشگاهی نشأت گرفته و آغاز می شود. در این مدل، مراحل حکومت و رقابت پذیری مربوط به فرآیند تجاری سازی دانش دانشگاهی، باعث متناسب شدن حالت انتخاب روش و در نهایت اجرای کارآفرینی دانشگاهی می شوند. این پژوهش جنبه توصیفی- تحلیلی دارد و به روش مطالعه اسنادی صورت گرفته است. یافته های پژوهش مؤید این است که مدل گام به گام کارآفرینی دانشگاهی، یک شیوۀ ساختارمند جهت فهم روابط تسهیل کننده و واسطه گر که باعث تحرک کارآفرینی دانشگاهی می شوند، ارائه می کند.
Today, the Entrepreneur University, academic entrepreneurship, and the commercialization of academic research are somehow attracting attention that has put pressure on academic institutions to become entrepreneurs. Accordingly, the present study aims to design and develop a step-by-step model of university entrepreneurship. In this model there are five stages in the process of university entrepreneurship that are: motivation, governance, selection, competition, and performance. The process of entrepreneurship originates from the motivation of faculty members from universities, industries and government to commercialize science and knowledge from academic research. In this model, the governance and competitiveness stages associated with the process of commercialization of academic knowledge make the selection of the method fit and, ultimately, the implementation of academic entrepreneurship. This research has a descriptive-analytic dimension and has been done through documentary study. Findings of the research confirm that the step-by-step model of university entrepreneurship is a structured way to understand facilitator and mediator relationships that stimulate entrepreneurship mobility.
1. Chrisman, J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 267–281.
2. Feller, I., & Feldman, M. (2010). The commercialization of academic patents: Black boxes, pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 597–616.
3. Lerner, J. (2005). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 49–56.
4. Siegel, D. S. (Ed.). (2006). Technological entrepreneurship: Institutions and agents involved in university technology transfer. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
5. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N. (2006). Conceptualizing the heterogeneity of research-based spinoffs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35, 289–308.
6. Niosi, J. (2006). Introduction to the symposium: Universities as a source of commercial technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 399–402.
7. Carayannis, E., Rogers, E., Kuriharac, K., & Allbritton, M. (1998). High-technology spinoffs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation, 18(1), 1–11.
8. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355–369.
9. Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 3(1), 19–46.
10. Hornsby, J. S., Naffziger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1993). An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37.
11. Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Bishop, J. W. (2005). An examination of managers’ entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(3), 275–291.
12. Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Goldsby, M. G. (2004). Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship: A proposed model of perceived implementation/outcome comparisons at the organizational and individual levels. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 77–89.
13. Burgelman, R. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a processes study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1364.
14. Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue), 5–15.
15. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.
16. Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurship orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.
17. Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351–378.
18. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.
19. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532.
20. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.
21. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 843–863.
22. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35, 1599–1615.
23. Rasmussen, E., Moen, O., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.
24. Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104
25. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 167–199.
26. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
27. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31, 132–152.
28. Shepherd, D., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “What is to be sustained” with “What is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137–163.
29. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89
30. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97–114.
31. Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at U.C. Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.
32. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
33. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.
34. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237.
35. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616–1630.
36. Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F., & Kornijenko, J. (2010). The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 1–21.
37. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
40. Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 30, 332–347.
